Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Read the Third time, and passed.

LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Monday 20 April at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Dredging)

Mr. Bayley: What action the Government are taking to reduce the amount of gravel and sand dredged from river beds in environmentally sensitive areas. [35440]

The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Environment Act 1995 requires all mineral permissions to be reviewed and conditions to be approved by the mineral planning authority. It is for the mineral planning authority—in my hon. Friend's case, North Yorkshire—to determine what new conditions are appropriate in the circumstances of any particular case.

Mr. Bayley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern in York and North Yorkshire about mineral planning authorities' inability, because of the high cost of compensation, to revoke permissions given way back in the 1950s to dredge in a way that would these days be regarded as environmentally unsatisfactory? Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer still considering, as he said he was in his May Budget, a review of the fiscal terms applicable to mineral extraction? Will my hon. Friend examine the law in Germany which, with regard to peat extraction, when a planning permission is revoked, limits compensation to the cost of the investment that the

landowner has made in the site and does not relate it to the loss of extraction—unlike a revocation of planning permission in this country?

Mr. Caborn: It is true that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is reviewing aggregate taxes, as he made clear in his statement on the Budget. In addition, North Yorkshire still has under review the appraisal of the mineral extraction in the case to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that the Minister realises the importance of the question asked by the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), especially in relation to the fiscal regime. If the Chancellor decides to tax digging aggregates out of holes, that will surely put greater pressure on river bed and sea bed extraction and make it cheaper to import aggregates. Will the Minister please make vigorous representations to the Chancellor to examine carefully what could be a disastrous policy for the United Kingdom aggregates industry?

Mr. Caborn: As I said, further research is being undertaken into mineral taxes. I have no doubt that the point made by the hon. Gentleman will be factored into my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's thinking before he makes a decision.

Government of London

Mrs. Gordon: When he expects to publish a White Paper on the future government of London. [35441]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I announced last week the publication of a White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", which sets out our proposals for a new Greater London authority made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly.

Mrs. Gordon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I was quite impressed that, no sooner had I tabled my question, the White Paper was published. That highlights the speed and determination with which the Government are bringing democracy back to the governance of London. Does not my right hon. Friend consider it fitting that we should be discussing the matter today, the 12th anniversary of the abolition of the Greater London council when the previous Tory Government handed over vital London services to unelected quangos? How do the Government intend to encourage the people of London to vote on 7 May, when I am sure there will be a resounding yes vote?

Mr. Prescott: The House will have noticed that, although my hon. Friend is a new Member, she has considerable influence on the Department's production of White Papers. She gives me the opportunity to recognise the anniversary of the abolition of the GLC and compare the Government's approach to the voice of London with that of the previous Administration, who abolished the GLC without any consultation. It is vital that as many people as possible vote on 7 May. We must all do our part, even if I have to stand in front of a goalpost.

Mr. Burstow: As the White Paper acknowledges that Londoners want a new non-confrontational style of


politics in London, and as the Government have been persuaded of the case for proportional representation in electing the assembly, are they equally open-minded on the policy of extending non-confrontational politics to the rest of local government by introducing fair votes for elections to town and county halls?

Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether I am the best person to advocate a non-confrontational approach to politics—each to his own—but we have made a judgment that the supplementary vote and the additional member system are appropriate and will encourage more Londoners to vote on 7 May and elect the mayor and assembly for which they are waiting.

Mr. Ottaway: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that when the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill was considered on Report, the Minister for London and Construction gave an undertaking that full information about the Government's proposals would be available before Londoners voted in the referendum? Does he agree that all sources of revenue to the Greater London authority are of paramount interest to voters? Is he aware that the White Paper leaves open whether a so-called congestion tax and a parking levy would be a source of revenue for the new authority? We know that the Liberal Democrats want it, but will he come clean before the referendum and honour the Minister's pledge? Will there be a tax on motorists—yes or no?

Mr. Prescott: I made it absolutely clear last week that matters of congestion and parking levies are being considered. The hon. Gentleman will have his answer when the White Paper is published.

Local Government Finance

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: When he last met representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss the distribution of local government finance in 1998–99. [35442]

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The Local Government Association had the opportunity to discuss the distribution of the 1998–99 settlement at our meeting on Wednesday 14 January.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Lady will be aware that the recent distribution of grant to local authorities has resulted in discrimination against shire counties. Looking to the future, will the Government bear it in mind that notwithstanding the apparent high level of the area cost adjustment for London and the south-east, if we detach the south-east and look only at the shire counties, it is clear that they receive far less than other counties and well below the national average—£792 per head compared with £869?

Ms Armstrong: Several questions on the amounts given to shire authorities have been tabled. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no discrimination; we have moved to a fairer settlement this year. He knows that no changes were made to the area cost adjustment under

the Conservatives. It is under consideration this year. We have commissioned additional research on the specific cost element of the area cost adjustment.

Dr. Kumar: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was an £8 million shortfall this year in the cash allocated for the business rate in Redcar and Cleveland? After yesterday's announcements, will she ensure that my constituents do not lose out next time on the business rate?

Ms Armstrong: The Government published further consultation papers yesterday on the reform of local government. On the business tax, we aim to balance the need for redistribution and stability with local authorities' ability to develop strong relationships with business. The ability to vary the national business rate at local level will meet those objectives. We look forward to the responses of all interested parties.

Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Lady accept that, this year, council tax rises have been significantly greater in shire areas than elsewhere? That suggests that the distribution of the money has been unhappy for country areas. Will she look closely at why council taxes have risen more steeply in many rural areas? If it turns out that those areas have received less than they should have done, will she undertake to come forward with new proposals for next year?

Ms Armstrong: It is not for me to reconsider the settlement once the House has agreed it. We regularly examine the distribution to ensure that it is as fair as possible. I have examined the Conservative allegations, which the right hon. Gentleman has repeated. There is an element that he has forgotten—metropolitan areas are facing elections this year; shire counties are not.

Mr. Pike: However we juggle around with the figures to make them fairer—which we clearly have done—if there is a financial ceiling, we are bound to please some authorities and upset others. Should not we reconsider how much of the burden should be borne by council tax payers? We need a larger allocation from the Government to meet local government expenditure.

Ms Armstrong: The issue is the balance between central and local funding. After the debacle of the poll tax, too much was taken to the centre. Central Government controlled not just how much money local authorities received, but what they spent it on. That has led to an unhealthy relationship between central and local government. We want a better balance, ensuring that areas of need have their needs properly addressed and that there is a fair distribution of Government grant.

Sir Norman Fowler: In spite of the Government's changes to the distribution of grant, which have undoubtedly favoured Labour councils, do not the latest figures show that of the 25 councils with the highest band D council tax, 23 are under Labour control, one is Liberal Democrat and the other is a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition? Why does the Minister think Labour councils tax more? She has mentioned the elections. Should not the public take that fact into account when they vote?

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we never believed that band D properly reflected what


was happening, and for this reason: the majority of properties in the majority of Labour authorities fall into bands A and B. The amount charged at band D therefore has to be higher because authorities have to raise the necessary amount from bands A and B. Indeed, from averages that we published last week, Labour councils charge an average of £590 and Tory councils an average of £626. I invite the electorate to take that into account.

Mr. Skinner: Before anybody runs away with the idea that marginal changes to revenue support grant distribution this financial year disbenefited the few shires still under Tory control, should we not remember that the lowest grant made to any shire county was that to Derbyshire, which has nine Labour Members? I therefore hope that my hon. Friend and others on the Treasury Bench will look at the matter very carefully with a view to ensuring that Derbyshire is not badly affected in this outcome and the one next year.

Ms Armstrong: Representations are being made to the Government about Derbyshire, and it would therefore not be proper for me to comment on the matter today. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Government are determined to see a fair distribution of Government grant throughout local government.

Mr. Flight: What assessment he has made of the impact of the local authority funding formula for 1998–99 on the provision of services by shire authorities. [35443]

Ms Armstrong: The impact of any change in the formula will depend on local authorities' decisions on the size and allocation of their budgets. Shire counties have gained significantly as a result of the additional £835 million that we have provided for schools this year. For the first time in four years, we have provided an increase for the services delivered by shire districts.

Mr. Flight: Taking West Sussex as a good example of a shire county, we see that spending on social services has been cut in real terms. Spending on other services, other than the Government's allocation to education, has stayed approximately equal. When allocations were made, did the Government consider how shire spending would work out? Why are allocations biased against shire counties? West Sussex has had quite enough attacks on extra housing, let alone on social services spending.

Ms Armstrong: I dispute that there was discrimination against shire counties. When dealing with a pot of money, one must distribute it fairly and properly, matching decisions with where need is and how money should follow need. We took particular decisions on standard spending assessments this year, which were calculated to deliver fairness. We recognised the particular need of shire districts and gave them an increase for the first time in four years. Due to particular pressure on education, we ensured that shire counties, along with other local education authorities, received a fair and additional allocation.

Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we want to assess whether the grant system is fair we need to take account of the settlements of the previous 18 years, which were fiddled by the previous Government to such an

extent that Westminster receives a better grant than Liverpool? Does she agree that she is trying to restore some of the fairness in the system after 18 years of the previous Administration's fiddling?

Ms Armstrong: We said before the election and in the manifesto that we wanted a fairer system of grant allocation. We have told the House about the manner in which we have changed the calculation of the indexes for examining economic and social need. That was done according to a formula agreed with the Local Government Association as a whole and with all its parts. That fairer allocation was worked out against a set of indicators that everybody agreed should exist. That was the main change. It meant that some authorities did better than others. Certainly there was a real change in the way need was assessed. We believe that the previous Administration did not address need in anything other than a partisan way.

Mr. Yeo: Will the Minister confirm to the House what has become clear during the past 10 minutes—first, that the Government have fiddled the formula so that Labour councils, however incompetent, extravagant, or corrupt, receive more money than before and, secondly, that council tax payers, whether their homes are in band A, B, C, D, E, F or G, pay more if they live under a Labour council than if they live under a Conservative council?

Ms Armstrong: Addressing fairness is not fiddling.

Landfill

Helen Jackson: What assessment he has made of the impact of landfill proposals announced in the Budget on his environmental objectives. [35444]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): The recent review of the landfill tax indicated that it is already having some impact on behaviour but that the rate needs to be higher to ensure a significant increase in waste recycling, recovery, and minimisation. I therefore welcome the Chancellor's decision to increase the standard rate of the tax.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole point of a tax on landfill should be not so much fiscal as environmental? There is some concern that the tax is falling heavily on local authorities, as the major waste disposal agents. What is he doing to ensure that the revenues generated from the tax are planned in a co-ordinated way, so as to bring genuine benefit to environmental projects that create jobs in the regions? When is he likely to undertake an overall review of landfill practice to ensure that it is meeting our environmental objectives?

Mr. Meacher: I agree that the purpose of the tax is primarily environmental rather than revenue raising. The environmental bodies scheme achieves that purpose to a degree, and about £68 million has been passed to enrolled environmental schemes under ENTRUST for use in environmentally sensitive projects, especially recycling. Customs and Excise is undertaking a review of the scheme and the Government want more of the money to go towards helping local authorities to increase recycling facilities.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall meeting representatives of British Salt,


from Middlewich in my constituency, and of ICI, who came to lobby him about their case concerning the payment of landfill tax? Does he agree that the pumping of brine, the extraction of salt and the returning of the material to underground cavities has no adverse environmental impact whatever? Will he ensure that in future those who carry out such activities will not have to pay the tax?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady came with a delegation to see me about the matter. It is a difficult issue because we must be exactly sure of the definition of environmental impact, which is disputed between the Environment Agency and the businesses concerned. I am anxious that there should be a fair conclusion to that long-standing dispute and I undertake to write to the hon. Lady.

Mr. David Taylor: I welcome the Minister's answer on landfill tax. The twin and equally ugly sister of landfill is opencast. Does he agree that that should be brought within the scope of environmental taxes so that the real costs incurred by nearby communities are brought into the public domain?

Mr. Meacher: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that major environmental impacts are caused by opencast, which is being examined under the energy review.

Regional Development Agencies

Mr. Ruffley: What representations he has received on the accountability of RDAs. [35446]

Mr. Caborn: We have received a number of representations about the accountability of RDAs. They will be non-departmental public bodies. As such, they will be accountable to Ministers, but they will also be required to consult the designated regional chamber and account for their activities to that chamber.

Mr. Ruffley: Is the Minister aware of the genuine concern felt by many rural interest organisations throughout the country that rural interests are not properly protected by the Regional Development Agencies Bill? Will he address that concern by ensuring that the RDAs produce an annual report, showing the effects of their activities on rural interests in their region? Will he further ensure that that report is laid before and debated by Parliament?

Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make some of those points during tomorrow's debates on the remaining stages of the Bill. Rural areas will be represented on the boards. The RDAs' annual reports will contain an element dealing with rural areas, and those reports will be deposited in the Library.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that organisations from rural areas are fully engaged in the RDAs? Does he further agree that Lancaster—being at the centre of the north-west region, which stretches from Cheshire to the Scottish border—is ideally placed to represent those rural interests in a north-west regional development agency?

Mr. Caborn: As I have just said, rural areas will be represented on the boards. I assure my hon. Friend that

the Government will approach the problems of rural areas more effectively than has previously been the case. We will ensure that issues such as deprivation and underemployment in rural areas are addressed positively.

Local Government Conduct

Mr. Pickles: When he next plans to meet representatives of local government in shire areas to discuss the conduct of local government. [35447]

Ms Armstrong: Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister chaired a meeting of the central-local partnership, the forum where senior Ministers and leading Local Government Association members discuss major issues affecting local government. Two further meetings of the partnership are planned for later this year.

Mr. Pickles: Those who attended that meeting were left with the impression that the Government favour the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill, which was introduced in another place and proposes a fundamental change to the way in which local authorities are conducted. The Bill is so important that it will receive its Second Reading in this Chamber, but the only way in which it can proceed is if the Government provide additional time. County councillors have formed the impression that the Government are favourable to that view. When can we expect an announcement?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not had a chance to read last week's Adjournment debate, when this matter was discussed. We are always keen to support proposals from local government to ensure that it is more responsive to local people. I understand that the hon. Gentleman's county council is interested in proposing ideas for experimentation. The Bill addresses experimentation in local government; it is not the Government saying, "This is what you ought to do." We need to be sure that local government has the opportunity to experiment. That is in the hands of the House, including Opposition Members.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for her efforts to try to improve the conduct of local government. In the experiments to which she referred, her attention will be drawn to the need to bring the standard spending assessment nearer the actual expenditure of local government. Will she try to narrow the gap between the SSA and expenditure to help the conduct of local government?

Ms Armstrong: Yesterday, we published three consultation papers governing local authority finance in which we addressed the future of grant distribution and the SSA, and offered ideas. We are also encouraging ideas from local government.
It is important that central Government listen to and work with local government. I look forward to the responses to yesterday's document.

Sir Norman Fowler: Let me returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Is it not a fact that the Local Government (Experimental Arrangements) Bill is a


controversial measure drafted entirely by the Government but introduced in another place by a private Member? Is it not also a fact that the Government want it to go on to the statute book without a Second Reading debate in this place on its principle? Surely that is unacceptable. Is it not another example of the Government attempting to bypass the House and the normal checks of parliamentary democracy?

Ms Armstrong: I seem to remember that the previous Administration pursued the same route with a Bill to open up committees in local government. I am not in charge of, nor can I control, the amount of time that Opposition Members want to take debating Bills on Second Reading. If Opposition Members were prepared to curtail discussion on other Bills, we would welcome a Second Reading debate in private Members' time. We are talking about a private Member's Bill, not a Government Bill. When the Government have to take forward such measures, we shall ensure that they receive proper attention in Government time.

Rail Rolling Stock Market

Jane Griffiths: If he will make a statement on the operation of the rail rolling stock market. [35470]

Mr. Prescott: On 21 January I asked the Rail Regulator to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the rolling stock leasing market and report his findings to me by mid-April. We will decide whether further action is required in the light of the regulator's recommendations.

Jane Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Audit Office has reported that the value of the rail rolling stock companies' cash flow was £2.9 billion, but that, because the sale was rushed through by the Tories on the basis of inadequate valuations, the nation's trains—our trains—were sold off for only £1.8 billion? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the privatisation of the rail rolling stock companies was the Tories' great train robbery?

Mr. Prescott: There is absolutely no doubt, especially after the National Audit Office's report, that there was a scandalous sale of the leasing companies and much of the privatised railways: it was identified that assets had been undersold and that a massive profit had been made. The Department will appear before the audit committee, and I hope that the Rail Regulator will make some recommendations in respect of the changes that need to be made.

Rail Freight

Mr. Connarty: What steps he proposes to encourage freight on to the railways. [35471]

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): Our proposals to create a new rail authority will help to ensure that freight interests are properly considered in the strategic planning of Britain's railway network. We will continue to improve the operation of the freight grants scheme, building on the success of last year. Our White Paper on integrated transport will include other proposals for encouraging rail freight.

Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he agrees with me that it is necessary

to put more freight on to rail so that we can reduce the pollution and congestion on our roads. I am sure also that he welcomes the decision by English, Welsh and Scottish Railways to put a new rail head into Grangemouth, the largest port in Scotland, which will help with the task of reducing pollution and congestion on our roads. Will my right hon. Friend give us some specific information about the grants that he is making available and what he has done to untangle the red tape that the previous Government put in the way of those who wished to use the grants for rail freight?

Dr. Strang: We certainly welcome the investment by EWS and other rail freight companies and we want to see the maximum progress made. We have simplified the grants arrangement and eliminated all the red tape. Whereas the money available for rail freight grants in the previous financial year was £15 million, we have increased it to £30 million in the current year, virtually all of which will be spent. Next year we are allocating £40 million for rail freight grants. On freight, the Government are putting their money where their mouth is.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not a fact that EWS Railways has, without subsidy, increased the amount of freight that it carries by introducing new services, and is to invest from its own resources some £650 million on 280 new locomotives and up to 5,000 new wagons? Is that not a significant success in transferring freight from road to rail? Is it not also a significant success for the policy of rail privatisation?

Dr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman should check his facts. The idea that EWS Railways receives no subsidy for rail freight totally ignores the concession in relation to the channel tunnel; it totally ignores the money that EWS got from the taxpayer to take over the state assets; and it totally fails to take into account the fact that the Government are putting £1.8 billion into the railway network this year.

Mr. Snape: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main competitor—[Interruption.]I will continue when the bickering stops. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the main competitor to long-distance rail freight is the heavy goods vehicle? If we are talking about subsidy, is it not a fact that, all over the country, bridges are being strengthened to take 44-tonne vehicles in accordance with the wishes of the European Community—

Dr. Strang: rose—

Mr. Snape: I have not finished yet; my right hon. Friend must forgive me. Would it not be sensible to maintain the Government's restrictions on the use of 44-tonne vehicles to ensure that as much long-distance freight as possible goes by rail?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Under European law, we will be required to accept 40-tonne, five-axle lorries on our roads from 1 January 1999. We have to take a decision—it certainly makes sense to do so—on whether we will allow 44-tonne lorries with six axles, which means less impact on the roads in future. We will have to take a decision on that in the next few months.

Transport Requirements (Rural Areas)

Mr. Flight: What assessment he has made of the role of the private car in meeting the transport requirements of people in rural areas. [35472]

Dr. Strang: The Government are aware that people in rural areas have to rely more on the private car for access to jobs and services than do people in towns or cities. The Chancellor has announced an additional £50 million a year to improve the public transport alternative in rural areas.

Mr. Flight: Given that the Government acknowledge that the car is a necessity for those living in the countryside, do they wish to insult people with their offer of £50 million, which amounts to virtually nothing per citizen? Why has policy yet again been aimed against the interests of those living in the countryside?

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman had better think again. If he thinks that £50 million a year is not a significant benefit to rural bus services, he should look at the current level of subsidy. He is right that, for many people, the private motor car is indispensable. That is why he should welcome the fact that the Chancellor has announced a new vehicle excise duty rate of £100 for the least polluting, most efficient vehicles.

Mr. Hanson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a private car is of assistance only to those who have one, and that many of my constituents in rural areas do not have access to private vehicles? Will he comment on the fact that, in Wales alone, 33 million bus journeys a year were lost through deregulation? That £50 million would certainly begin to rebuild bus services and give many of my constituents real access to real services in towns outside the rural areas.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No less than a fifth of households in rural areas have no access to a motor car. That is why we have not only put another £50 million into rural transport but, by increasing the fuel duty rebate for buses to ensure that they are not subject to the higher duty on fuel, we have given them the benefit of £40 million. Moreover, we are looking at how we can more effectively regulate buses.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Although the Government have put £50 million into rural areas, did not the previous Conservative Government's introduction of the fuel price tax escalator take £4.5 billion from motorists, and will not the changes now introduced by the Labour Government take £9 billion from motorists during the lifetime of the Parliament? Would that not be more than enough to reduce vehicle excise duty for all motorists driving small vehicles up to 1600 cc, not to £100 but to just £10? Would that not help rural motorists to stay on the road while encouraging them to use less polluting vehicles?

Dr. Strang: But £100 for the cleanest vehicles is a good start. If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to talk to private bus operators in his constituency, he will find that, when they take into account the £50 million and the fact that the increase in the fuel duty rebate is worth £40 million, they will tell him, as they are telling me, that this is the best Budget that the bus industry has ever had.

Mrs. McGuire: Unlike the Conservative party, I welcome the investment in rural transport announced by

the Chancellor. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that, in parallel with urban transport management, it is essential that we have rural transport management to encourage people out of their cars and on to public transport, resulting in greater integration? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in planning rural transport, the Government will consider the integration of services, which will meet the needs of education, work and leisure in rural communities in Britain?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes a number of important points. Of course, some families in rural areas have no alternative to the motor car because there is no bus service anywhere near them. But, as has already been pointed out, many households in rural areas do not have access to a car, and that is why public transport is so important to them, and why my hon. Friend will be looking forward to the new White Paper which will announce further initiatives in that area.

Mr. Chope: The Government pay lip service to rural public transport but, in reality, they are raising £1.7 billion extra in taxes next year from motorists; investing less than 10 per cent. of that in public transport and less than 1 per cent. of it in rural public transport; and the sum of £50 million is even less than the £60 million which is being raised by the new secret £25 tax on every new car that is registered. Are not the Government totally out of touch with the realities of rural life where, for most people, the car is a necessity rather than a luxury?

Dr. Strang: The Conservative party's green manifesto of 1997 states:
We need to consider new ways to break the link between desirable economic growth and undesirable traffic growth. We will continue to encourage the manufacture of more fuel efficient vehicles through annual increases in fuel duty.
That was entitled "Leadership Abroad, Responsibility at Home". I do not see much sign of that now from the Conservative party.

Mr. Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quality bus initiatives—joint partnerships between private bus companies and local authorities—will benefit from the £50 million, and that that £50 million could be translated throughout the country into a series of schemes that will benefit a vast number of people throughout rural areas? Does he further agree—I am sure that he has already done so this afternoon—that, in reality, many people in rural villages, particularly in my constituency of Loughborough, do not have access to their car during the day once it has been parked in the town centre? An integrated transport system will ensure that such cars stay at home and that buses go to some of those rural villages that have been so badly damaged during the past 18 years.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of that £50 million, £45 million will go to the bus industry, but £5 million will be available for community transport and for other types of transport in rural areas. Some Labour Members, including my hon. Friend, are considering innovative methods of rural transport in their constituencies.

Traffic Congestion (A380)

Mr. Sanders: What proposals he has to reduce traffic congestion on the A380 between Newton Abbot and Torbay. [35473]

Dr. Strang: The A380 is a local road for which Devon county council is the highway authority. It therefore falls to the council to develop and implement any measures to reduce traffic congestion on the route.

Mr. Sanders: That was not a particularly helpful answer, given the traffic congestion on that route. At the moment, we are waiting for approval of a private finance initiative scheme to build a bypass, but it looks as though it will not be forthcoming. What specific advice would the Minister give the responsible authority to reduce traffic congestion now and in the future?

Dr. Strang: As part of our roads review, we are developing a new appraisal framework to enable us to prioritise road schemes. Although it will be applied to the trunk road programme, it will be available for application to local authority schemes, particularly public-private partnership schemes, which is how the hon. Gentleman's county council has decided to go ahead with that scheme. He may be aware that the county council will require at least another two years' work before it is in a position to sign a contract for such a scheme, so there is no question of the Government delaying the scheme.

Heavy Goods Vehicle Operators

Caroline Flint: What measures he proposes against illegal heavy goods vehicle operators. [35474]

Dr. Strang: In my recent speech to the annual conference of the Freight Transport Association, I announced consultation on proposals for the detention of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles. We are determined to take tough action against cowboy operators who undermine the great law-abiding majority of road hauliers.

Caroline Flint: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the former Transport Minister, Steve Norris, who I understand is now chief trucker for the Road Haulage Association, agreed when he was a Transport Minister with the measures now being taken by my right hon. Friend, even though he did not receive backing from the Government of the day? Is not that another case of the previous Government parking good ideas in the layby while the new Labour Government move us into the fast lane? My right hon. Friend has my assurance that the many law-abiding road hauliers in my constituency will raise their Yorkie bars in salute to his action.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is another example of a policy which this Government are implementing but which past Ministers make excuses for not implementing during the 18 years of Conservative rule because they were not allowed to. I welcome the support of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association for those proposals.

Mr. Boswell: Although I do not condone cowboy operators, will the Minister bear in mind two specific

points? First, he must ensure at least reasonable equality of treatment on overloading as between the various magistrates courts across the country, to encourage them towards consistency of treatment. Secondly, as the Minister is contemplating higher lorry weights with more axles, will he remember the importance of ensuring that those weights are evenly distributed and that any axles are adequately compensated?

Dr. Strang: That is a fair point. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not condone cowboy operations. He must understand that it is not just a question of fairness to law-abiding operators, but that cowboy operators tend to be those who are involved in accidents, who are a threat on the roads to the vast majority of people who try to travel about safely, and who offend in relation to our environmental objectives. I therefore hope that 1 have the whole House's support in clamping down on cowboy operators.

Private Motoring

Mr. Brady: If he will make a statement on the costs of private motoring. [35475]

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): Information on retail prices is released by the Office for National Statistics. Over the period 1974 to 1997, motoring costs have stayed about the same in real terms. In the year ending December 1997, the cost of private motoring increased by slightly less than the all-items retail prices index.

Mr. Brady: Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor's Budget changes in motoring taxation will impact particularly hard on the low-paid and those on fixed incomes? Is she further aware that a typical unskilled manual worker will pay £66 more a year, and that a retired couple on state pensions will pay another £18 a year? Does she share my concern that the tax will hit those who are least able to pay?

Ms Jackson: I wonder at the hon. Gentleman's somewhat late concern for those who are unable to pay. He may be interested to know that in the last decade of the previous Administration, the cost of motoring in real terms increased by about 5 per cent., compared with increases of about 21 per cent. for rail fares and 16 per cent. for bus and coach fares. There is no distance between those figures and the fact that at that time the previous Administration were forcing through legislation on two particularly unpopular privatizations—those of the buses and of the railways.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend join me in advising hon. Members that, from tomorrow, they will be able to avoid the costs of private motoring by getting on their bikes and claiming the 6.2p a mile cycle allowance?

Ms Jackson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her work in producing this marked change in funding for transport as it applies to hon. Members, which is a giant step forward in improving the environment for everyone.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The new Labour Government are supposedly promoting fairness. I wish to


speak for my constituents in the county of Cheshire. My constituency contains a lot of rural areas and remote rural villages. Does she believe it fair that my council tax payers should not only meet a council tax increase of nearly 16 per cent., but face such a huge increase in motoring costs—especially the heavy increase in the price of petrol—when they live in areas where there never has been any public transport, and never will be, despite the limited inducements provided by the Government in the Budget? Is that an example of Labour Government fairness?

Ms Jackson: The Government do not share the hon. Gentleman's philosophy of despair. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has pointed out, the Chancellor has found £50 million, every year for three years, which will be specifically targeted to create rural bus services. He has also increased the fuel duty rebate to the tune of £40 million. We are as much concerned with reducing and reversing the seemingly inevitable tide of environmental pollution as we are with creating a properly integrated public transport system.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recognise that in parts of the country where there are no public transport arrangements and bus services to be assisted by the £50 million—remote, rural, sparsely populated areas such as the highlands and islands of Scotland—the price of petrol is rising at a substantially higher rate than in other parts of the country? Will she undertake to examine with other Ministers what is being done in other parts of the European Union to deal with such inequity? Will she consider lowering value added tax on petrol in such areas to increase the possibility of people being removed from their communities by their own cars, and not by the impossibility of living there?

Ms Jackson: Ministers have already pointed out that the Chancellor made his Budget changes because he was cognisant of the fact that people in many rural areas depend exclusively on private cars because of the failures of the previous Administration. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the particular difficulties in his area. I have touched on the amounts of money that the Chancellor found for the creation of public transport systems in remote areas, and we have also touched on reduced vehicle excise duty for environmentally friendly cars.
I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of people, particularly those whom the right hon. Gentleman represents, to take best advantage of the Government's proposal to create a properly integrated public transport system that meets the needs of far-flung areas.

London Transport

Mr. McNulty: What steps he proposes to improve transport provision in London. [35476]

Ms Glenda Jackson: We have recently announced a number of proposals that will improve transport in London, including a public-private partnership to address London Underground's investment needs; an extra £365 million for London Transport over the next two years; the establishment of new passenger transport services on the Thames; the introduction of revised traffic management and parking guidance; and, through the new Greater London authority, better planning and integration of transport services under Transport for London.

Mr. McNulty: Those announcements are much welcomed by the people of London. For all their hot air and blather, all that the Tories left Londoners was a £1.2 million backlog in tube investment. Does the Minister agree that the present Government have done more in the last two weeks than the other lot did in the last 18 years?

Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend would not expect me to disagree with that factually accurate statement.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced the privatisation of London Underground infrastructure. Bearing in mind the fact that the operation is to remain in the public sector, how can the Minister be sure to attract the necessary additional private capital? Will London Underground borrowing remain within the Treasury rules on the public sector borrowing requirement?

Ms Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not announce a privatisation. He announced a third and middle way: it is neither overt nationalisation nor overt privatisation. I understand that many people who are very interested in being part of a public-private partnership are already queueing up outside his door.

Health Action Zones

30 pm

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Two weeks ago, I came to the House to announce that the extra £500 million earmarked for the national health service in the Chancellor's Budget would be devoted to reducing hospital in-patient waiting lists. That was part of our modernisation programme for the health service, which was set out in our recent White Paper "The New NHS". That programme will be necessary if patients and taxpayers are to get the full benefit of the extra resources we are providing, and if the million dedicated staff are to be able to use their talents to the full.
Our Green Paper on public health spelled out the action that the new Government intend to take to prevent people from falling ill in the first place, and to narrow the health gap between rich and poor./lb/>
Today I come to the House to announce the 11 areas in England that will become health action zones, where special arrangements will be made to benefit local people by both modernising the local health services and taking concerted action to tackle the root causes of ill health.
Health action zones will involve local partnerships between the health service, local councils and voluntary groups and local businesses. Their job will be to make measurable improvements in the health of local people and in the quality of treatment and care. They will break down existing barriers that are holding back local partnerships, which everybody recognises are crucial to tackling intractable health problems in many of the worst-off parts of the country.
Applications to become a health action zone were received from 41 health authorities covering widely differing areas: inner cities, coalfield communities, struggling rural areas and places where wealth and poverty live cheek by jowl. I shall now announce the 11 areas chosen for the first wave.
The South Yorkshire coalfield communities of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham with a population of 770,000, want in particular to tackle the problem of young people growing up in communities ravaged by pit closures and the chronic ill health of many older people. Bradford, with a population of 470,000, has already shown a willingness to work in partnership to tackle deep-seated causes of ill health.
The east end of London, covering the boroughs of Hackney, Newham and Tower Hamlets, with a population of 580,000, has the greatest concentration of poverty and poor health in the whole country. Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, with a population of 730,000, rank second only to the east end on the scale of need, and have the highest rate of under-age pregnancies in the country. Luton has a population of 180,000, and the unitary council and the health service have shown a remarkable commitment to working together.
Manchester, Salford and Trafford, with a population of 880,000, have shown an exemplary willingness to abandon old rivalries and instead to get together to promote the health and well-being of local people. North Cumbria, with a population of 320,000, is a predominantly rural area with acute deprivation on the coast of west Cumbria, whose needs were ignored by the previous Government.
Northumberland, with a population of 310,000, is another predominantly rural area. It also contains pockets of severe deprivation, where both the health of the local people and the environment are scarred by the legacy of industrial decline. Plymouth, with a population of 260,000, contains some of the most deprived neighbourhoods in Britain, and has often been ignored in the past because of its location in the west country.
Sandwell, with a population of 300,000, has an excellent record of collaborative regeneration, but faces major public health challenges. Tyne and Wear, with a population of 1,100,000, contains many seriously deprived areas, and the health service and local councils are committed to a common strategy to improve the health of the whole conurbation.
The areas chosen cover a total population of almost 6 million, and include many of the most deprived parts of the country. Every health service region is represented. The health action zones cover a wide range of circumstances, as the people living in them face a wide variety of problems. The hospitals, clinics and GP premises in the zones range from the very best to the very worst. All the zones need special help; all have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to change and modernize—to help themselves. The zones will make real changes in people's experience of health services, and will begin to make real progress in tackling inequalities.
Let me give just one example of the conditions that should receive special attention in a health action zone: diabetes. Diabetes is the principal cause of blindness, and a major cause of coronary heart disease and amputations. Many of those drastic consequences of diabetes could be avoided by early diagnosis, advice, help and treatment. In health action zones, bureaucratic obstacles to early and continuing top-quality attention and treatment for diabetes will be removed, so that primary, community and social services join hospital specialists to provide a continuous range of services. That is just one example of the changes that health action zones can bring about.
People will begin to experience real differences in health action zones. Let me give an example of local priorities from each of the zones that have been chosen. I mentioned diabetes. In Bradford, a new community-based diabetes service is being set up—a partnership between the health authority, general practice and community and acute trusts to deliver integrated preventive, specialist and primary care to a very needy population. That is an instance of the different parts of the NHS working together, rather than in competition.
In the South Yorkshire coalfield communities, a heart health programme will be implemented, and rehabilitation services will be redeveloped to better support the casualties of the coal and steel industries. In the east end of London—in recognition of the fact that everyone is healthier if they have a job—the health action zone will target improving job opportunities for disadvantaged young people, particularly those from ethnic minorities. It will work in partnership with the local authorities, new deal agencies, local employers—including health trusts—and voluntary groups.
In Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham, the zone will develop an integrated approach to improving child health and supporting families, including programmes to improve parenting skills and reduce under-age pregnancies, and home start schemes to support families


with vulnerable children. In Luton, the health needs of Asian women will be particularly addressed. There will be a focus on increasing the uptake of cervical screening, the development of a community-based coloscopy service with a female consultant, and a partnership between the NHS and the Asian community to address child development problems.
Manchester, Salford and Trafford will take an integrated approach to mental health, with programmes to provide employment and training opportunities for people with serious mental problems, and accompanying programmes to improve mental health services. North Cumbria will go ahead with an anti-poverty strategy and will work with local transport services to improve access to health services in rural areas.
Northumberland will develop a network of healthy living centres, ranging in scope from one based on a large community hospital and health facility, to making use of new technology—virtual centres for the most isolated rural areas. Plymouth will develop new approaches to improving dental health, particularly in children. In Sandwell, the health action zone will build on valuable work that has been carried out in your constituency, Madam Speaker, action on community health in Tipton and the Neptune health park, and will be used to develop community-focused health services throughout the zone.
In Tyne and Wear, there will be a new partnership approach to improving the health of elderly people, with a new system for assessing high risk, improved access to public transport, improved special housing, and a programme to improve home insulation and reduce hypothermia.
Now that the health action zones have been chosen, they must get on with the job, and much remains to be done. With the help of the NHS executive, each of the chosen areas will have to prepare detailed plans to implement what they have proposed. We shall be monitoring closely to check that their actions are having a real impact on health. They must ensure that they work in consultation with front-line staff, patients, carers and users.
I expect health action zones to develop ways of involving patients and the public in making decisions about local priorities. Each will be expected to produce by October a practical programme for measurable change.
Some £5.3 million will be made available in the coming year to promote joint working in each locality. A further £30 million will be made available in the following year to finance direct improvements in local health and health care. Further additional resources will also be available from the new opportunities fund to provide healthy living centres. We shall also look to give priority to the zones in terms of further development funds and initiatives, including giving them greater freedom and flexibility to improve health and social services for their people.
To improve local health, the health action zones will promote local partnerships to tackle pollution, homelessness, unemployment and poverty. To improve local health services, they will develop primary and community services, improve premises, promote the use of telemedicine, modernise hospital services and develop a health service that is moulded to the needs of local people.
To carry out both those tasks, the health action zones will have to tackle all the bureaucratic impediments that presently stand in the way. When they do that, it will save money and time, and that will let doctors, nurses and other staff get on with their real job of looking after patients instead of having to tend to the needs of the bureaucratic machine that we have inherited. That is a long-term challenge, and that is why this is a long-term commitment. It is seven years for each zone.
I realise that there will be great disappointment in the areas that have not been chosen, but this is just the first wave. A further group of 10 or a dozen areas will become health action zones next year. Once again, they will be chosen on the basis of need, and of being able to demonstrate a willingness and capacity to put together an effective local partnership.
I urge everybody concerned to continue to develop local partnerships. We know from the number of applications that that is what people throughout the country want to do, and that is further proof that what we are doing goes with the grain. I remind everyone that partnership can be put into practice without having to wait for health action zone status. Early partnerships will bring practical benefits for the health of local people, as well as improving the chances of success in the next round of applications.
The cornerstone of our public health strategy is our commitment to driving up the standards of health among the poorest at a faster rate than for the general population. We also want to modernise the NHS to meet the needs of patients and carers, and to give the dedicated staff of the health service the resources and opportunities to bring about the improvements in quality of treatment and care that they are striving to achieve.
This is a massive double challenge. No Government have previously dared to set themselves such a challenge. It means partnership in action, not partnership on paper. To meet the challenge will require targeted effort and targeted resources. Health action zones will deliver both.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: First, may I apologise for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) is not making this response, and for the fact that I will have to go before the exchanges are over, for the reason that I have already given in correspondence to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State?
The theme running through the White Paper is clearly that, if one can improve co-ordination between the various services, that must help inequalities in health. I say at the outset that that is a perfectly laudable aspiration, and I commend the Secretary of State for it. I am pleased also that the health action zones that have already been announced include rural areas. I cannot think for one moment why I ever doubted that they would, but I commend him for it.
However, whether or not the Secretary of State will succeed in his aspirations will depend not so much on the rhetoric of today's statement as on his response to some of the detailed questions that I imagine he is going to be asked. He has said that there will be 11 health action zones now and some 10 to 12 more next year. How far does he see the process of health action zones going? Ultimately, how many zones will be in place throughout the country?
Is there not the difficulty that, if the ultimate aim is that there should be a health action zone everywhere, the Secretary of State will be faced with a conflict of priorities in trying to work out which area is going to have more priority than another? In short, I ask him effectively to draw the dividing lines between what will count for inequality and what will not, because he knows as well as I do that, throughout the country, it would be possible to make a case even for areas of apparent affluence where there are inequalities that need to be addressed.
On finance, the Secretary of State said that £5.3 million would be made available in the coming year. He went on to say that £30 million extra will be made available in the following year. Is that new money or old? If it is new money, he is going to have to tell us why he thinks that those funds should be applied in this way and not in other, proven ways within the national health service to improve matters. If he is talking about new money, he is going to have to satisfy the House, and ultimately the public at large, that those relatively substantial sums should not be applied directly into reducing waiting lists.
Alternatively—it is not entirely obvious from what the Secretary of State has said—is it in fact old money? Is the money already there in the system? Some people will say that, if it is simply old money, this is very much a question of the emperor having no clothes. We hear enough strictures from the right hon. Gentleman, usually blamed on us, but that cannot last for ever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no?"] They know how to take the bait. Wait and see what the response will be in the 13th month.
We hear enough strictures from the Secretary of State about why more resources are not available, so, if this is old money, where is the money being taken from? What areas will be rifled to produce that money? What areas will find that they have fewer resources to make up for the extra resources that are being applied in this way?
The Secretary of State talked eloquently about bureaucracy. I should like to know what increases in bureaucracy he is expecting. What new structures—not in theory, but in practice—is he expecting? Are we going to have a co-ordinator general? Are we going to have a team of outreach workers who will help to monitor the performance of the co-ordinator general?
In short, the Secretary of State seems to be doing two contradictory things, although doubtless with the best intentions. He talked about tackling
all the bureaucratic impediments that presently stand in the way.
Elsewhere, he talked movingly of
the needs of the bureaucratic machine".
Judging from his statements today, it is a recipe not so much for cutting bureaucracy as for increasing it.
Both today and since 1 May, the right hon. Gentleman has made great play of the fact that the way in which to deliver extra resources to the health service was to cut bureaucracy. How does it come about that one cuts bureaucracy and tackles the bureaucratic machine, while creating a new bureaucracy to do so?
The Secretary of State believes—it runs clearly throughout the statement as it did through the press release that announced the initiative some months ago—that health action zones will be able to address those inequalities in health that matter so much to him and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, his statement does not make it clear how he will measure the

success of that policy. Indeed, it could not make that clear because, in his Green Paper, the right hon. Gentleman has reduced from 27 to four the criteria by which one judges whether the health of the nation has been improved.
I could offer my thoughts on that, but, knowing the cynicism that sometimes permeates the Labour Benches, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he does not have to take my word for the fact that the reduction of those targets will make it impossible for him to know whether his health action zones are successful. He has only to consider the remarks of Karen Caines of the Institute of Health Service Management. When talking about the effect that reducing the targets would have on inequalities in health care, she said:
on this most crucial issue of health and equality they"—
the Government—
have bottled out. Without measurable targets, even over a long-term scale, there will be less pressure for change and less scope to hold them to account.
I cannot say whether that lady is a right-wing nutter, but I have never yet heard that term applied to a leader writer in The Guardian. Considering whether health action zones and the like would succeed, that leader writer said:
The Government is wrong to shrink the number of targets from 27 to four … Most serious of all is the absence of targets for reducing health inequalities. Anti-poverty campaigners must insist on their inclusion. There must be a specific commitment to close the gap.
That is what The Guardian thought about the Secretary of State's approach to these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman needs to address that.
The Secretary of State has to say what he regards as the criteria of success. Aspirations do not cure anything. The right hon. Gentleman is engaged on a noble crusade to improve the health of those who are most disadvantaged in our country, but he has not yet told the House—it does not appear in the statement—what criteria he will use to decide whether that has been achieved.
We are dealing today with part of the same process that has permeated Government health policy since they took office, which is that they have not produced a radical agenda for improving the health of the nation. They have produced a blizzard of acronyms and snappy-sounding titles. Today we have heard about health action zones. We can add that to the Soviet-sounding NICE and Chimp, which can also be added to local community groups and primary care groups, as well as to the healthy living centres referred to so movingly today by the Secretary of State.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something more about that, or will he rely instead on the quotation from the Minister for Public Health, his hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell)? In a memorable but infelicitous way, she talked about healthy living centres and said that they will be "Lycra-free zones". She said that they will be "exercise on prescription". I must ask the right hon. Gentleman how behaviour such as that, together with such nanny statism at its absolute worse, can take forward this agenda.
The statement is laudable enough in its aspirations, but it is woefully short on detail and on the criteria that must be used to see whether it is ultimately a success. Today, the Secretary of State must begin to address those questions. He must show that he is capable of


transforming an ill-thought-out and ill-judged press release issued months ago into a coherent intellectual statement about how the health of the nation can be improved. So far, the Secretary of State's record in office has shown that he is completely incapable of doing so. Perhaps today, for once, he will prove that we are wrong.

Mr. Dobson: Criticism from Karen Caines—she and her husband were the principal architects of the lunatic system for organising the national health service that we inherited from the Tories—is music to my ears. Although it may sound strange coming from a Labour Cabinet member, the same applies to The Guardian leading articles.
I would take up too much time if I attempted to reply to all the points—some of which were conflicting—made by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I welcome his welcome for our emphasis on co-ordination, which has certainly been lacking in the past. He accused us of making proposals for improving the health of the worst-off parts of the United Kingdom, and of abandoning proven ways of dealing with health inequalities. However, there are no proven ways of dealing with health inequalities in the UK. If there were, the Tories must have ignored them, because health inequalities grew—the health of poorer people fell even further behind the health of wealthy people—while the previous Government were in office.
We are determined to tackle the ill health that results from poverty where poverty occurs. That objective has very little to do with national targets, but everything to do with local targets. People are suffering from pneumoconiosis in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham; people are not suffering from pneumoconiosis in east Surrey. Setting a national target for dealing with such conditions would therefore be a spurious approach. We are saying that, in those areas, effort will be targeted and bureaucracy broken down, as local people wish.
If the hon. Member for Teignbridge—who made a gallant effort to substitute for, and did much better than, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—thinks that our proposals are not popular, he will have to explain why 41 health authorities applied for health action zone status. Sadly, 30 of them will be disappointed.

Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend—as only one hairy man can do to another—[Laughter.]

Mr. Peter Snape: Better move off that one, Jim.

Mr. Cousins: Yes; move off it, but hang on to it.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which will be greatly and warmly welcomed in Tyne and Wear, the largest of the health action zones. He will know that action will come not a moment too soon in Tyne and Wear, where—against the trend of the past 150 years—death rates are rising among younger men, who should be in the prime of their lives as earners, fathers and sportsmen, and among older women, who should be looking forward to many more happy and active years.

I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that very difficult situation and accept that it requires urgent action—to ensure that the promises of partnership stated in the document submitted by Tyne and Wear are truly met; that specialists are winkled out of civic centres and hospitals and put to work with at-risk groups in communities; and that, together, we consider people's total well-being, mental and physical, in ensuring that the objectives are delivered.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend—like myself, a fully paid-up member of the hirsute tendency—for his welcome. I acknowledge the parlous state of health among many of the worst-off people in Tyne and Wear—which is why Tyne and Wear has been chosen as a health action zone. The fact—which, until recently, was denied by Conservative Members—is that unemployment is one of the principal causes of ill health. In younger people, unemployment leads to suicide and accidents; despair and hopelessness; and drug use, which itself leads to illness and early death. If a middle-aged man loses his job, his chance of dying in the next five years is doubled.
We therefore cannot tackle health problems by using health measures alone. We have to create jobs, build houses and get wages up. We have to tackle poverty, and pollution.
As for getting the specialists and consultants out doing the work, my experience of health service consultants, limited as it is, is that most want nothing more than an untrammelled opportunity to improve the health of people who are poorly. That is why they went into the profession. Many have been inhibited by bureaucracy and a lack of resources, which is why we are trying to tackle both.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I warmly welcome the Secretary of State's statement. We congratulate him on following up the Green Paper of a few days ago, which was a statement of principle, with a statement which delivers some resources, targeted specifically to many of the worst-off areas. That is right even though, by the Secretary of State's admission, the first step is fairly modest.
I have three simple questions. First, given that 41 areas applied and only 11 were chosen, on what criteria was the choice made? Secondly, although the Secretary of State is of course right to say that each area has a different priority, does he agree that the ideal outcome of the scheme should be that, as far as health action zones go, everyone should have one?
Finally, given that it was implied in the statement, if not explicitly expressed, that the Berlin wall between health, social and other services needs to be broken down, has the right hon. Gentleman yet arrived at the view shared by my colleagues and me that the sooner we join health and social services commissioning, the better?

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome, which I suppose was to be expected as his constituency is in one of the chosen zones. I have to say that the zones were chosen on the basis of my estimation of the need in particular areas and on my estimation, with the advice of my ministerial colleagues and some officials, of the ability and capacity of the relevant people in a particular area to deliver what they said they could


deliver. I am not pretending that it was a wholly objective activity. Unlike the previous Government, I will not shelter behind officials. In the end, the decisions were taken by me, and I take responsibility for them.
These are new ideas that we are putting into practice. We want to learn as we go along. It is what works that counts, and it may be that many of the ideas developed in health action zones are eventually incorporated into health improvement programmes, which every health authority will be expected to deliver.
Yes, we are dedicated to bringing down the Berlin wall between the national health service and social services. The people working in both services did a brilliant job last winter in working together and making use of the extra £300 million that we found, but no, we do not think that the services should be managed by one and the same organisation.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. The need in the South Yorkshire coalfield is apparent to most people who have seen the devastation that has taken place over the past 15 years. The health action zone is most welcome, and we will be endeavouring to ensure that it works out for the people of South Yorkshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will build on the partnerships that are already working in some parts of all three boroughs? I am thinking of the health and benefits bus which has been operating in Rotherham for many years and which has won national awards.
What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with other Government Departments about the action that they can take to assist in health action zones?

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. The places chosen are ones where the relevant people were already demonstrating the capacity to work together on behalf of local people. We need to build on those partnerships and strengthen them, and I hope that we will be able to do that.
Of course, other Government Departments are also targeting their efforts. Many of the areas on which the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for example, are targeting their efforts are the very places that have been chosen for health action zones or are broadly similar. That is because the need in those areas spreads across health, education, employment, housing and the environment. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will, in the fulness of time, be announcing the measures that we will be taking better to co-ordinate the various initiatives.

Mr. Graham Brady: I welcome steps to improve health in Manchester and Salford, provided that they are not to the detriment of people in Trafford. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the health action zone will not be used as a vehicle to transfer funding from Trafford to Salford or Manchester, and will he further guarantee that there will be no reduction in beds at Trafford general hospital or Altrincham general hospital?

Mr. Dobson: Both Trafford council and those responsible for the provision of health services in Trafford

were enthusiastic members of the group that put together the bid for health action zone status for Manchester, Salford and Trafford. It is a great step forward for that part of Greater Manchester that they are working together, instead of the fractious, damaging and wasteful relationships that prevailed in the past.
As the elected representatives and those working for the health service in Trafford are enthusiastic supporters of the proposition, I assume that it will not involve the transfers that the hon. Gentleman fears. We have to make sure that the various services provided in those two cities and a borough help one another and work together in partnership. Perhaps Manchester can provide some services that are not available in Trafford or Salford, or vice versa.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On behalf of my constituents and the people of north Cumbria, may I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision? I see it as a victory for all those who, ever since the Black report in the early 1980s, have argued right through that the only way to solve problems of deprivation in health care is to have an anti-poverty strategy directed towards those objectives. My right hon. Friend is the first Secretary of State for Health to deliver on precisely that agenda.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. and good Friend for his kind words. I did not really need to read the Black report to understand what it was about, and the terrible wrong and injustice represented by the differing life chances between children born in Kentish Town or Cleator Moor compared with those living in Surrey or the most prosperous parts of Hampshire.
I wish people in those prosperous areas well, but I want children in every part of the country to have the same chance of a decent life expectation, a job, a healthy life, a successful marriage producing healthy children and breaking out of the terrible cycle of deprivation that has dragged down the lives of millions of people whom Labour Members have tried to represent. In my limited and humble way, so long as I stand at this Dispatch Box, I will remain committed to that, and my colleagues are behind me.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome today's announcement, particularly that a large, sparsely populated rural area has been included in the Northumberland health action zone. It provides an opportunity to congratulate the staff of the Northumberland health authority, who have produced an imaginative scheme using new technology to help those who live many miles away from local hospitals. The Secretary of State could do one further thing for my constituents in Hexham: he could give the go-ahead for a new district general hospital, which was promised by the previous Government but delayed by the present one.

Mr. Dobson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the Northumberland health authority and others associated with the bid, and their intention to demonstrate that new technology does not represent a threat, but, properly deployed, can result in massive improvements in health care, particularly for those in isolated rural communities. In respect of the new hospital at Hexham, I do not make promises at the Dispatch Box


that I cannot guarantee to deliver. I hope that I will not be accused of breaking a promise that was made not by me, but by the hon. Member's hon. Friends.

Mr. Snape: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks and congratulations on behalf of my constituents in the borough of Sandwell for his welcome announcement? Widespread concern has been expressed locally about the future of the health service in the borough, particularly the accident and emergency services in West Bromwich and surrounding areas. His announcement will go a long way to allaying those concerns.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the officers and members of the local health authority and health trust on the way in which they put together their successful bid? Will he also accept the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), whose duties prevent them from expressing their thanks publicly?

Mr. Dobson: I could do nothing else, for fear of my life. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who put together Sandwell's fine application. It reflected the needs of the area and showed the effort and commitment of the local authority, the health authority and the trust. It is a great credit to them all.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State has made an exciting statement, but I am sure that he agrees that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that all the areas that have been granted health action zone status take up the opportunity.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even prosperous areas with low levels of unemployment, such as Macclesfield, have small pockets of extreme poverty and deprivation? He may be interested that the village of Poynton in the north of my constituency used to boast a number of coal mines, including the Nelson pit and the Anson pit. Particularly in the town of Macclesfield, there are some small pockets of extreme deprivation. Will there be an opportunity in future tranches for an area such as south Cheshire to gain health action zone status?

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. and generous Gentleman for his welcome for our proposals. He rightly says that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I shall not claim credit until the proposals have worked. There are small pockets of deprivation in every part of the country. Their problems cannot be addressed fully by health action zone status. We are trying to ensure that the primary care system makes a positive contribution to the lives of people on small, rundown estates. Even in relatively prosperous villages, there are often people who are badly housed, badly paid, badly off and not very well.

Ms Rosie Winterton: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on designating the South Yorkshire coalfields as a health action zone? Will he join me in paying tribute to the hard work of the local authorities and the health authorities in forming the new partnership, which will tackle not only the effects of

industrial diseases, but the worrying issue of the number of under-age pregnancies? The area has one of the highest levels of under-age pregnancy in the country.

Mr. Dobson: The performance of officials and the elected and appointed members of health authorities and trusts in Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham was exemplary in putting together their successful bid. God knows, few parts of the country have been as ill served in the past two decades by central Government as the South Yorkshire coalfields. We owe it to people there to provide services in an attempt to make up for all the awful things that have happened over the past few years, and to bring back the prosperity that they used to enjoy. We should aim to go beyond that, and raise standards of living and health higher than they were even when the pits were working.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and thank him on behalf of the people of Bradford for his kind words about Bradford's successful bid. Will not two key elements make health action zones successful: true partnership between local players and ownership in developing health platforms? I am sure that this will be superb news for all our districts.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend missed out one person; in bringing people together to work positively for the health of the people of Bradford, nobody has played a bigger role than my hon. Friend himself. I congratulate him on that. It just shows what we can achieve when everybody is committed to working together to look after the interests of their town, village or great city, rather than working against one another, when things fall apart.

Mr. Nick Gibb: How will setting up 11 health action zones help people in West Sussex health authority, which is facing a very serious financial crisis that is threatening both community hospitals in my constituency? Twelve beds are to be closed at Littlehampton hospital tomorrow and 12 beds in the accident and emergency unit are under threat at Bognor Regis War Memorial hospital. How will the Secretary of State's announcement help to save those beds?

Mr. Dobson: It will not; there is no point in pretending that it will. The area is not a health action zone, so the measures will not help. I hope that the additional funding that we have provided for the health service—the £1.2 billion announced in the Budget, the £300 million found for the winter and the extra £500 million to deal with waiting lists for the coming year—will make some contribution. I do not know offhand the details of the finances of West Sussex health authority, but I could probably wager a tenner that it inherited some deficits from the previous Government.

Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend accept my warmest congratulations on his great wisdom in selecting Luton as one of the health action zones? Is he aware that one of the key issues that the health action zone will need to tackle is the tragedy of high child mortality, which in Luton is 14 per cent. higher than the national average? Does he recognise that


that is but one example of health inequality, which deepened in Luton over the past 18 years and should be to the eternal shame of Conservative Members?

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her kind words. I have been accused two weeks running of being wise, which may be dangerous: I may be praised in a leading article in The Guardian if I am not careful. Child mortality is probably the worst manifestation of inequality in health. It is a disgrace to those of us who have been fortunate enough to experience the pleasure and thrill of a healthy child coming into this world and growing up that society denies such opportunity to so many.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Representing the healthiest constituency in England, I would be churlish to complain about initiatives intended to reduce health inequality. None the less, the Secretary of State should recognise that he talks of £5.3 million for a population of nearly 6 million, which is less than £1 per head, yet authorities often spend about £1,000 per head on health. Does he agree that every health authority should pursue initiatives such as those he is describing? Increasingly, health authorities should not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops to satisfy the Secretary of State. They should be given adequate funding and local freedom and responsibility to undertake initiatives that they judge are in their best interests, rather than undertaking simply what the Secretary of State judges ought to be in their interest.

Mr. Dobson: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's sensible point that the object must be to get every health authority to pursue such policies, targeted on improving health and taking down bureaucratic barriers that are preventing across-the-board efforts to improve health. That is our intention.
When we change the laws, as we will in the next Session, we shall place a duty on every health authority to draw up a health improvement programme for their area, in consultation with local people, reflecting local priorities. That is why we are not laying down national targets, as the previous Government did; we are allowing authorities to follow the four major targets that we have laid down and to identify how they will contribute towards them. They could also identify the particular problems that beset the people of their areas and come up with proposals for dealing with them.
At least on this occasion, we are broadly in agreement. I do not pretend that the £5.3 million that will be available to the health action zones in the forthcoming year will make a major contribution to health improvements this year; it is intended to facilitate some of the changes. However, £30 million extra will be available to health action zones in the following year and, because the Government will give them high priority for health spending, they will receive all sorts of other additional funds to help them deal with the problems facing their people, and to enable the dedicated staff in those parts of the country to do the job that they want to do.

Ms Joan Walley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but may I also refer him to my Adjournment debate on health inequalities in north Staffordshire? If he could offer the people of north Staffordshire some hope in connection with the

consideration of subsequent health action zones, we would feel that we stood to benefit from his statement today, as we are so acutely aware of the huge health inequalities in our area. We are already working in partnership, and we would really appreciate an opportunity to discuss with my right hon. Friend how we could ensure that a subsequent bid would be successful.

Mr. Dobson: I understand the disappointment that will be felt in north Staffordshire—especially by my hon. Friend, who has put enormous effort into trying to get everybody there working together to improve health in the area, and into trying to persuade me to give north Staffordshire health action zone status. It is no criticism of my hon. Friend that I could not afford to give that status.
The problem is that I could choose only 10 or 11 areas, and in terms of a combination of need with a demonstrated capacity to start addressing the problem, north Staffordshire was not in the first 11. However, it was not far down the list, and I repeat what I said in my statement—that the more the people in each locality can work together, the more they will bring immediate benefits for the health of the local population. They will also be able to produce a more convincing case for health action zone status by demonstrating that they are already doing what we want them to do.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The aims are laudable, but we have heard little detail about how health action zones will work. Will the Minister please explain?

Mr. Dobson: I am sorry if my halting explanation in the statement seems to have passed the hon. Gentleman by. The idea is that in the health action zones all the organisations concerned—the health authorities, the trust or trusts, local authorities, voluntary organisations, community organisations, businesses and the various professions—should get together and start working together to draw up plans for targeted improvements in health and sensible changes in the way in which things are done—

Mr. Ian Bruce: They could have an aerobics class together.

Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether it would be anything to do with an aerobics class in South Dorset, but it would have needed only 77 people in the constituency—an aerobics class, perhaps—to vote the other way at the election for the hon. Gentleman to have been replaced by a Labour Member. Until now, we have managed to have a perfectly sensible discussion with people making sensible points. Such empty-headed comments as the hon. Gentleman' s do no good, but they do show why, in as Tory an area as South Dorset, we got within 77 votes of winning the seat.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: May I convey my congratulations to my right hon. Friend, even though the Wigan, Leigh and Bolton health authority has not been included? There is some disappointment about that, but we have put down a marker for mark II of the grants. Wigan is a classic example of an area of mining obsolescence, and the same is true of textiles in the Bolton area. We have the worst dental health records in Wigan—it is top of the pops in that respect—and the incidence of


pneumoconiosis, emphysema, bronchitis and silicosis in our textile towns is very high. In setting any future criteria for health action zones, will my right hon. Friend ensure that favourable consideration is given to that part of the world?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has long been a powerful advocate of the interests of the people of Wigan and Bolton, and he continues today. I promise to look carefully at next year's applications, but I emphasise that anything he can do to get people to work together now will immediately benefit people, and will further the area's chances of being chosen next time.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on a very, very good statement. I look forward to improved health for the men and women who worked in shipbuilding, the mines and the steelworks in the north-east—particularly in my constituency of Blyth Valley—because the legacy of poor health is starting to show through on the older people who worked in those industries. I hope that the proposals will help young people also—particularly in terms of the drugs scene, which is very big in the area and has been a bit of a mess for a long time. The proposals must be a giant step for the Labour Government.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is a sobering thought that the heavy industries in his part of the world have closed down, but have not been replaced to anything like the extent necessary to provide employment and reasonable prospects, particularly for a lot of young men in the area. At the same time, the suppliers of drugs have moved in to fill the vacuum. The efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and the Government's drugs co-ordinator will help, and should be part of the consideration for future health action zones.

Mr. Stephen Hesford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on what is essentially a public health approach to the matter. Does he accept that more than 1 million people on Merseyside will be disappointed that the area has not received health action zone status? My health authority, Wirral health authority, was one of the main players in the bid. Does he accept that progress was made across Merseyside to put the bid together?
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend courageously told the House that he took a personal approach in difficult circumstances in choosing the health action zones, as there were going to be only 10 or 11, and he will perhaps confirm that the Merseyside bid was very close. Can he assist areas such as Merseyside, which were disappointed on this occasion, by giving considered directions as to where they fell short?

Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that it is our intention—some of this may have been done already—that officials in my Department will be advising all the applicants on the strengths and weaknesses of their applications. I hope that that will lead to improvements. I tried my best not necessarily to make my judgment on the presentation of the individual application but on the substance behind it. We all know in various spheres that sometimes a flash application is not likely to be followed by flash performance.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to a matter that arises from a written answer that was given to me, which appears in column 378 of yesterday's Hansard. It is a reply from the Prime Minister to a simple question, which was:
who initiated the recent telephone conversation between him and the Italian Premier, Romano Prodi"—[Official Report, 30 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 378.]
concerning Mr. Rupert Murdoch? The Prime Minister refuses to answer that question in clear terms in his response.
The point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is whether it is in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to give a straight answer to my question when his spin doctors outside the House are allegedly giving straight answers to the question. Why is it not possible for an answer to be given that appears on the record in the House? Is it because the answer would be different from that given outside?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Speaker is not responsible for answers given by Ministers.

Millennium Conformity

Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision with respect to the capability of computer systems and other goods and related services to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; to require certain invoices to be paid promptly; to make 31st December 1999 a bank holiday; and for connected purposes.
The sinking of the Titanic was a disaster that was not foreseen. Indeed, it is not often that we can see a crisis coming with sufficient time to avoid it. This, however, has been the case with the crisis that now faces the United Kingdom and every country in which the daily lives of its citizens rely on the efficient functioning of computer systems. This crisis will arise in 640 days' time because most computer systems will not recognise the year 2000. Unless they have been retimed, reprogrammed or replaced, they will quite simply no longer perform as they have been programmed to do.
As the Prime Minister told a conference of business men yesterday, the resultant chaos and confusion will affect the work of Governments, the conduct of business and the welfare of entire societies, and it will be global. No advanced country can isolate itself unless effective action has been taken. Nevertheless, there is much that individual countries can and should be doing to protect their own public services and the private sector. It is this that the Bill is all about.
Until 27 November 1997, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement about the millennium compliancy of computer systems in central Government, I had been the only Member to have raised the issue. The first time was in an oral question to the then Prime Minister in December 1995. I raised the issue again in an Adjournment debate in June 1996. Later that year the House allowed me to introduce my first Bill on the matter—the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill—which had reached consideration on Report by the time of the general election last year. I reintroduced it to the present Parliament last July. It remains on the Order Paper for Second Reading, but I must reluctantly accept that time is running out for it to be effective.
Of course I regret that this Government, like the previous one, are failing to appreciate the simple solution to the unique issue which my Bill proposes, requiring, as it does, company directors to conduct an assessment of the ability of their computer systems to recognise the year 2000 and to report on the outcome of that assessment to their shareholders in the annual report. Instead, as the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday, the Government are relying on voluntary persuasion for it to be recognised that there is a need to be aware of the problem, and to take the necessary action in response.
Today, in the light of the evidence, I urge the House to accept that the situation is too serious to rely on voluntary persuasion, and that there is now no alternative but to require action to be taken by law if we are to avoid problems, many of which are not yet foreseen, which undoubtedly would put many businesses and many people at risk.
What is the evidence to support the need for my proposed legislation? Unfortunately, there does not exist in this or any other country any clear measure of progress

on compliance and readiness in the private sector. There is no quarterly report, such as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has introduced relating to the situation in central Government. Nor is there any clear measure to quantify progress in the provision of public services outside central Government, such as the national health service and local government. My Bill would address that.
All that exists today are various surveys, all of which come to much the same conclusion: that less than 10 per cent. of businesses have carried out a full system audit; that less than one fifth of business managers consider the problem to be critical; and that about half the businesses in the country have taken no action at all in response to the problem.
As the Confederation of British Industry told the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which reports on this issue next week:
There remains a disturbingly large number who have not recognised that the millennium date change may have a drastic effect on their businesses.
Cap Gemini, which is Europe's largest computer services company, told us:
one in six UK organisations will fail to meet the deadline, and therefore 38 per cent. of GDP will be at risk.
Yet these surveys almost certainly give a false, and probably over-optimistic, picture, because many companies will be reluctant to admit to being unaware; that they have yet to take action; that they are being advised by their lawyers not to say anything for fear of possible legal action, or of giving information away to their competitors.
The truth is that we have no means of knowing the state of millennium readiness of this country. As a result, companies will be—and are being—panicked into replacing whole systems unnecessarily and at enormous cost, and both private and public sectors will put into place contingency plans, which may not be necessary, to avoid the breakdown of services that is predicted.
My Bill can avoid this nightmare scenario. It would require any company or person who manufactures, produces or sells any computer system or provides any related service to ensure that these recognise 1 January 2000 and beyond, as defined by the British Standards Institute code of millennium conformity. They will be required to indicate conformity on their goods and services, and will be breaking the law if they say that they are compliant when they are not.
The legal requirement to label will be similar to the way in which drugs are required to be labelled and dated to protect the consumer. That is why, in my view, it is essential. Companies will be required to make a declaration of conformity. Indeed, every company will be required by the appropriate Secretary of State to provide such a written declaration no later than 1 October 1999. That will enable the Government to establish, as they cannot do at present, the country's state of readiness, and to respond accordingly.
As one of the major problems concerns embedded chips—for example, those in production lines, security systems and telephone exchanges—the Bill will require companies using such systems to label them accordingly.
I emphasise just how valuable the requirement to disclose will be to force those responsible to take the action that is not being taken. The Bill will also provide


for all invoices for payment earlier than 1 December 1999 to be paid and cleared no later than 10 December 1999 to ensure cash flow, just in case it becomes impossible to do so after the new century has begun.
Finally, the Bill proposes that Friday 31 December 1999 should be designated a national bank holiday to allow key staff to come in and make final checks of the readiness of compliance, and of contingency plans, in time for midnight of the millennium.
I recognise that the Bill is regulatory, in obliging businesses and the providers of public services to satisfy statutory requirements, but, as I have argued, that is now necessary. It does not matter whether most of the public sector and most of the private sector invest in millennium compliance. As Cap Gemini warned the Select Committee, if even a tiny number of key organisations, such as utilities, banks or central Government Departments, miss the deadline, the knock-on effects will cause severe economic disruption. Only the Government can take responsibility for ensuring that that does not happen.
The Bill provides the Government with the means to avert that disruption. It complements what the Prime Minister announced yesterday, by making Britain one of the world's best-prepared countries. That is why I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Frank Cook, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Robert Sheldon, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. John Townend and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

MILLENNIUM CONFORMITY

Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the capability of computer systems and other goods and related services to deal with calendar dates after 31st December 1999; to require certain invoices to be paid promptly; to make 31st December 1999 a bank holiday; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April, and to be printed [Bill 165].

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As one of the Bill's sponsors, I say yet again that, under the procedures of the House, there is an argument for ten-minute Bills being taken a bit more seriously. If the Committee stage of the first Bill of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, on which I served, had been taken as seriously as then Ministers said it would be, we might not have been in quite such a pickle as we are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I hope that all matters before the House are taken seriously at all times. I repeat the advice that I gave the hon. Gentleman on an earlier occasion, that that matter might usefully be taken up with the Leader of the House, either in her capacity as such or as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee.

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 30 March].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

RESERVED MATTERS

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 495, in page 68, leave out lines 33 and 34.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 496, in page 68, line 36, after 'crossings),', insert 'and'.
No. 497, in page 68, line 36, leave out
'and Part VI (speed limits)'.
Government amendment No. 533.
No. 480, in page 69, line 10, leave out from 'training)' to end of line 11.
No. 208, in page 69, line 14, leave out 'Provision and'.
No. 209, in page 69, line 18, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 21.
No. 210, in page 69, leave out lines 23 and 24.
No. 211, in page 69, line 25, leave out from 'section' to end of line 26 and insert
'136(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (competent authority in relation to the railways financial status regulations).'.
No. 498, in page 69, line 26, at end insert—
'The functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland.
The power to require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services within Scotland to report to the Parliament.'.
Government amendments Nos. 534 to 536.
No. 481, in page 70, line 2, leave out 'or finish or both' and insert 'and finish'.
Government amendments Nos. 537 to 544.

Mr. Gorrie: Amendment No. 495 relates to licensing public service vehicles, amendments Nos. 496 and 497 relate to speed limits and amendment No. 498 relates to passenger rail franchising.
The licensing of public service vehicles under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Transport Act 1985 is a reserved item. The notes on clauses state that the licensing system is administered by the traffic commissioner for the Scottish traffic area constituted under the 1981 Act. If a Scottish traffic commissioner regulates buses in Scotland, I can see no argument for him or her not to be responsible to the Scottish Parliament. The issue concerns mainly licensing, the safety of buses and so on.
The Government's argument for reserving the power is that such issues must be common throughout the United Kingdom. However, with respect, the Government are falling into the trap, which they sometimes accuse the


Conservative party of falling into, of thinking that everything must be the same. The argument for a Scottish Parliament is that, where appropriate, the Scots should have the right to do things differently. If the Scottish Parliament wishes to have a different licensing system for rural buses, buses on small islands, or something of that sort, as long as it pays due heed to national and international safety standards, it should be allowed such control. For the Scottish Parliament not to have that control—the matter is already under the separate control of an official in Scotland—would be remarkably foolish.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the hon. Gentleman inquired into the costs of the break-up of the United Kingdom driving licence set-up? He will correct me if I am wrong, but I hear anecdotally that to remove responsibility from Swansea would be extremely costly.

Mr. Gorrie: The hon. Gentleman has not understood what I am getting at. If that is my fault, I apologise. I am dealing not with driver licensing but with the licensing of public service vehicles, such as buses, and the giving of safety certificates. As I said, that is already done by an official for Scotland, so no additional costs would be involved.
Amendment No. 496 relates to speed limits. The Scottish Parliament is responsible for road safety; the notes on clauses contain a series of points about exactly what it can do. But if the Scottish Parliament felt that to have a different system of speed limits was a major item in its road safety policy, it would cause extreme friction and unpleasantness if it were told that it could not have such a system; that it could have all sorts of humps and hollows, but could not limit speeds around, for example, schools or residential areas, to 20 mph or even less.
We accept the need for conformity in the layout of pedestrian crossings and traffic signs, because many drivers go round the United Kingdom and different signs would confuse them. However, if there was a clear sign limiting a driver's speed to 15 mph in a particular street, even the thickest driver would understand that. The Scottish Parliament should be allowed to give such powers to local authorities. Again, I see no reason for saying that the Scottish Parliament is responsible for road safety, but cannot take one of the key steps to achieve that.
Amendment No. 498 relates to rail franchising. It covers some of the same ground as a number of amendments relating to the control of railways, in the name of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). We have great sympathy with those amendments and, if the Government were minded to support that line of approach, we would be happy. However, the approach that we have gone for is that the functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland should not be reserved, and that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services in Scotland to report to the Scottish Parliament.
There is a problem about United Kingdom rail services, so we are not suggesting a sort of unilateral declaration of independence for Scottish rail services, but there are many services within Scotland, and we do not see why

the Scottish Parliament should not have much more direct control over them, through the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, and by requiring Railtrack and the franchisee companies to report to the Scottish Parliament. To deny the Scottish Parliament a direct say in the conduct of internal Scottish railway services is an unhappy arrangement, which the Government should reconsider.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 480 and 481.
Amendment No. 480 is a probing amendment, the effect of which would be to reserve sections 157 to 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to this Parliament. No political point is being made. All we want is that the Government explain the logic of this exception to the reserved power. As the Bill stands, it raises the possibility of differing payments for treatment of traffic casualties, depending whether they sustain their injuries in Scotland or in another part of the United Kingdom. What can be the rationale for opening up that possibility?
Amendment No. 481 removes the existing reservation and therefore devolves further power to the Scottish Parliament. The Bill reserves not just shipping services that start and finish outside Scotland, but services that connect Scotland with other countries or parts of the UK. The amendment would bring those connecting services back within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
Yesterday, we heard some extraordinary speeches from Labour Members. Speaker after speaker was in favour of reservations and against the principle of devolution. The speeches were all the more remarkable, given the quarters from which they came—not least among those who spoke was the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). They bore eloquent testimony to the disciplinary machine that the Labour party has become. Whenever something has been found to be controversial, embarrassing or sensitive, the Government have sought to reserve the power over it to this Parliament. We saw it yesterday, we see it now and we shall see it again later this afternoon.
The Government undoubtedly perceive that they will have more effective control over those issues in governing their supporters in this Parliament than through the tenuous grasp they will have on the Scottish Parliament, particularly on their own supporters. What can possibly be the logic of reserving financial assistance to shipping to this Parliament? Surely it is up to the new Parliament in Scotland to decide which passenger and freight shipping routes are worthy of financial assistance, whether to establish or maintain them. There is some logic in the notes on clauses, which say that it is to prevent differing approaches, which might distort the market for shipping services. That is enough to make a cat laugh. When were the Government ever concerned about market distortions? Their whole legislative programme is riddled with market distortion. Indeed, the Bill contains an enormous market distortion consequent on the threatening differential in income tax between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
It was not concern for the principles of the free market that led to that reservation; it was distrust. The Government will not entrust that aspect of policy to the new Parliament. That is all the more remarkable, given all the talk that we heard when the White Paper was published, attendant on the referendum, and on Second Reading, about new politics and inclusiveness. We now see that it was nothing but the grinding of air.
Under the previous Administration, the then Secretary of State established a new ferry service between Scotland and Northern Ireland—between Ballycastle and Castleton.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? The service to which he refers is between Ballycastle and Campbeltown. May I also point out that the Conservative Government refused to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to run that service, which could have damaged the new infant service beyond repair?

Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction. That is what I thought I had said—I must have stumbled or mumbled. I shall deal with his substantive point in a moment.
It is monstrous and ridiculous that such a service should be placed outside the competence of the new Scottish Parliament. The Government are implying that the new Parliament is not sufficiently responsible and mature to establish its transport priorities and provide financial assistance from the funds available to it from the Consolidated Fund.
As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) observed, a number of people in Scotland are unhappy about how the ferry service between Scotland and Northern Ireland was established. Amendment No. 481 provides him with an opportunity that he should seize.

Mr. Desmond Browne: Can the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is arguing for devolution of the power to control that ferry service to the new Northern Ireland assembly or Parliament, or to the Scottish Parliament, or whether the sensible course is, as it passes between two areas, to leave it as a UK ferry service?

Mr. Swayne: That service was set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the benefit of Scotland. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Dr. Godman: I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way again.
That ferry service was set up to benefit Northern Ireland and a particular part of Scotland. May I point out that Caledonian MacBrayne suffered for 18 years the Conservative party's mismanagement at the Scottish Office? I hope that, without the hon. Gentleman's useless and irrelevant amendment, Caledonian MacBrayne will prosper vis-à-vis a Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman should consider carefully the fact that amendment No. 481 places within the domain of the Scottish Parliament those issues about which he is concerned. As the Bill stands, those issues are beyond the competence of the Scottish Parliament, which is most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly on the provision of railway services. I shall speak to amendments Nos. 208 to 211.
The purpose of the amendments is simple: to allow the Scottish Parliament to achieve an integrated transport strategy throughout Scotland. As hon. Members from Scotland know, that is even more important in Scotland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom, because of the sparsity of the population and the longer distances that people have to travel. The amendments aim to achieve that by giving the Scottish Parliament powers over the provision of railway services that are similar to those that it will have over other forms of transport. That will be done by removing references to the provision of railway services from the list of reserved matters, but leaving the regulation of railway services as a reserved matter.
According to paragraph 3.2 of the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", the reserved powers are to be only in areas where matters can be more effectively and beneficially handled on a UK basis. It is far from clear that that criterion has been met in this case. There is no need for a reservation, as the vast majority of rail traffic—some 95 per cent.—using the Scottish rail network is internal and thus needs to be considered not on a UK basis but in a Scottish context.
The Scottish and English networks connect at only two points, and the division of responsibilities for trunk roads between the Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is a suitable model for jurisdiction. There should be no significant problems in developing that model for rail if it can be used for roads. The last thing that we want for the railways is conflict, especially as we have just come through reorganisation, but the reservations in the Bill make it highly probable.
5 pm
The amendments would also allow the Scottish Parliament to consider private legislation relating to the building of new railway lines in Scotland. Under schedule 7, such plans would have to be considered in this House under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, which is somewhat outdated for the job as it is more than 60 years old. Private legislation procedures in England and Wales have been updated by the Transport and Works Act 1992. It would be unreasonable to force the Scottish Parliament to come to this House to use pre-war procedures because it wants a railway line to be built in Scotland. I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will take note of my remarks and agree with me.
The amendments to schedule 5 would remove ambiguity about local authority funding for railway services in Scotland under section 136 of the Railways Act 1993. The schedule, as drafted, requires such funding to be carried out under reserved powers, and such activities could not be integrated into the Scottish block as administered by the Scottish Parliament. That is a recipe for disaster, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees.
The Bill threatens any Scottish Office efforts to grant assistance to projects that would shift freight from road to rail. That anomaly would be removed by the amendments. The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which I am a member, has recently concluded a major examination of railways and the effects of privatisation of British Rail, which was performed by the last


Tory Government. I shall not go into the details of that mistaken policy, but hon. Members will be aware of the unanimous Select Committee report on the matter.
Our examination of the new composition of the network found that the generally unsatisfactory relationship between rail passengers and rail companies was a major problem. The amendments would allow the Scottish Parliament to remedy that by appointing the members of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland, which is mere common sense. I hope that the Minister will allow it to happen.
The unanimous report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee called for a strategic rail authority to be set up, which is further evidence of the need for the development of a unified and integrated transport policy. Anything else would be irrational, and it would be wrong to recognise the importance of the policy in the rest of the United Kingdom but to deny it in Scotland. Such a policy must be developed, especially given Scotland's many and varied needs for transport.
If the Minister cannot accept the amendments, I hope that he will accept the aims behind them and reassure hon. Members that the Scottish Parliament will be able to develop an integrated transport policy. I hope that the amendments, which would allow that to happen, will be accepted.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I welcome amendment No. 495, which was moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). It would be bizarre if we could not trust the Scottish Parliament to administer matters such as public service vehicle operator licences and speed limits, which are of no interest to people outside Scotland.
I also welcome the amendments to which the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) spoke, and hope that the Government support them. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, ScotRail is a well-contained organisation that operates almost all the railways in Scotland, with the exception of the preserved lines. Almost all its services operate within Scotland, with the exception of the Caledonian sleepers, which some hon. Members travel on occasionally. It is logical to devolve such powers to the new Scottish Parliament.
The logic that argues for amendments Nos. 208 to 211 also argues for amendment No. 498, which would devolve rail franchising. I have some sympathy with the Conservative amendment on ferry traffic. Labour Members seemed to think it bizarre that a ferry travelling from Northern Ireland to Scotland should come under the aegis of two different authorities with control over ferry services. The most successful ferry services in the world, which sail from France to England, are in exactly the same position, although that has never impinged on their effectiveness.
The Government amendments would, if I understand them correctly, introduce a new reservation on hovercrafts and wrecks to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which would take reserved powers a stage too far. The Government are devolving the power dealing with the noise of hovercrafts, but the noise of wrecks does not

come into the matter. That is unnecessarily complex, and the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people are able to look after those matters in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: As an unbeliever in the whole proposition for devolution, hon. Members may take it from me that, none the less, there was great sense in the convincing, powerful and welcome speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). How on earth can we expect Members of the Holyrood Parliament not to concern themselves with transport matters? Within seconds of his rising to speak, it was clear that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) would be completely dissatisfied with existing arrangements, and was truly and accurately reflecting the attitudes of every member of every party that will be represented in the Edinburgh Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Minister, energetic man that he is, will be the first to say, "If only we had more authority to do something about it ourselves," when there is trouble over slow trains and passengers being kept waiting. If we are to have the Edinburgh Parliament, it will be wholly unreal not to give it such powers.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I welcome the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to the new peripatetic Front-Bench service that the Conservatives are now operating—it has some merits.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Why is the Minister doing it all alone?

Mr. McLeish: It is the responsibility of high office. I am doing the job for the fun of it, as you, Mr. Lord, can well imagine. How enjoyable it is to face another six and a half hours with such delightful company.
Before speaking to the Opposition amendments, I shall speak briefly to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 533 is a drafting amendment to clarify the scope of the exception from the road transport reservation. It is consistent with the approach taken throughout schedule 5. Amendments Nos. 534 to 536 respectively add to the reservation the subject matter of the Hovercraft Act 1968, except for provisions dealing with noise pollution, section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 and the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985. The 1973 Act deals with the designation of protected areas around dangerous wrecks, and the 1985 Act deals with the powers of harbourmasters and the Secretary of State in relation to dangerous vessels.
The amendments fulfil the Government's commitment to ensure that matters related to marine safety are reserved.

Dr. Godman: Amendment No. 537 deletes the words "marine works" and inserts the word "boatslips". How does my hon. Friend define a "boatslip"? Does it refer to boatyards as well as to slipways used by fishermen in the maintenance of their craft and by small boat builders and fishing boat repairers?

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that matter shortly, if my hon. Friend can wait.
Amendment No. 538 tidies up the qualifications to the exemption from reservation as a consequence of amendments Nos. 534 to 536 by making it clear that the Scottish Parliament does not have competence on matters of marine safety when legislating on ports and harbours.
Amendment No. 537 is a clarificatory amendment. It would remove the reference to marine works and substitute a reference to boatslips. That is because the statutory definition of "marine work" in section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964 is a harbour or boatslip used for certain purposes. As harbours form part of the exception, and to avoid confusion, we propose to add the reference to boatslips and to delete that to marine works. Amendment No. 539 is consequential on amendment No. 537.
It is proposed that the Scottish Parliament will have legislative competence on airport planning and environmental matters, including airport byelaws and traffic matters. The Bill already makes provision for that by excepting the subject matter of section 30 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which deals with the provision of aerodromes and facilities at aerodromes by local authorities. Amendment No. 540 would extend the exception to cover related powers under section 31 of the 1982 Act, which covers local authorities' powers to carry on a business ancillary to the running of an aerodrome.
Amendment No. 541 would delete from the exception from reservation the subject matter of sections 44 to 49 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Those sections make provision on safety at aerodromes and warnings about obstructions, and are properly part of the reserved matter of the regulation of aviation and air transport. The amendment would not affect the competence of the Scottish Parliament in respect of airport planning and environmental matters, including airport byelaws and traffic matters.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does that mean that the Scottish Parliament will have responsibility for approving licensed aerodromes, but will have to seek permission, under the Civil Aviation Act 1982, from the United Kingdom Parliament's devolved authorities in respect of obstructions? The Scottish Parliament will not have complete control over those matters, and will have to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman's analysis is correct. The main issue is that airport planning, environmental matters, air byelaws and traffic matters will be devolved responsibilities. His interpretation is correct in respect of obstructions.
Amendment No. 542 is a technical amendment to ensure consistency between the wording of the proposed exceptions from reservation. In line with the general devolution of airport planning and environmental matters, including airport byelaws and traffic matters, amendment No. 543 would extend the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive to the compulsory acquisition of land by an airport operator and the disposal of compulsorily acquired land.
Amendment No. 544 clarifies the reservation in schedule 5 about the setting of accessibility standards for public passenger transport for disabled persons. As the

White Paper stated, technical specifications relating to the needs of disabled people in public passenger transport will be reserved to ensure uniformity across the United Kingdom.
However, other aspects of transport for the disabled, such as the orange badge scheme and concessionary fare schemes, are devolved. It is also intended that the Scottish Parliament could establish, if it wishes, a statutory body, like the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, to operate in devolved areas of transport for disabled persons. By substituting the words "technical specifications" for the word "standards", the amendment makes the distinction between reserved and devolved matters clear, and I commend it to the Committee.
I shall now deal with the Opposition amendments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) set out his reasons for tabling amendment No. 495, which deals with the licensing of operators of public service vehicles in Scotland. I should like to set out my reasons for not accepting it. The Government have made it plain that certain matters would benefit from a consistent and integrated approach across Great Britain, and operator licensing for public service vehicles falls into that category.
It would clearly be impractical, confusing and inconvenient for operators potentially to be subject to different licensing standards in Scotland from those operating in the rest of the country. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Would the Minister care to speculate on how many operators of public transport services in England and Scotland are likely to be confused by the amendment?

Mr. McLeish: I am disinclined to speculate on that, because I do not have the information readily available. I hope that the consistency, coherence and common sense of our approach will be evident to all hon. Members.

Mr. Dalyell: I interrupted the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to ask him the cost of his proposals. Do the Government have any easily available figures on the cost of disruption to and break-up of those technical organizations?

Mr. McLeish: No work has been done on that point, partly because we intend to reserve those matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that simple explanation.
The Government do not accept amendments Nos. 496 and 497, which seek to devolve the provisions of part VI of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 on general speed limits. A high degree of consistency between the general speed limits that apply in Scotland and those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom is desirable in the interests of road safety and driver comprehension.
The Government cannot accept amendment No. 480, which deals with road traffic casualties. It seeks to reserve the provisions of sections 157 to 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which deal with the recovery of payments for hospital treatment of road traffic casualties. Those provisions are not an integral part of GB roads legislation, as the powers in the Act to make charges are given specifically to Health Ministers. The whole subject of


health in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It would therefore be inappropriate for this area of recovery of payment for hospital treatment of road accident casualties alone to be reserved.

Mr. Swayne: Do the provisions of the Bill as they now stand mean that, if a pedestrian were knocked down at one end of the bridge over the Tweed at Coldstream, a differential payment may be made, but it would depend on the part of the bridge where he was knocked down? Will that be beneficial or confusing to the insurance industry?

Mr. McLeish: That is the current position. Our proposals are reasonable, because they are consistent with devolved power.

Mr. Ancram: The Minister should answer the question for once.

Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Gentleman is always carping from a sedentary position about not receiving answers. The trouble is that if I give Conservative Members an answer that they do not like or that they think is wrong, they say that I do not know the answer. Their attitude is scurrilous. I am a measured person, and I hope that, rather than make remarks from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman will make his comments at the Dispatch Box so that everyone can hear them.
Amendments Nos. 208 to 211 deal with rail responsibilities. I shall give our reasons for not accepting them, although I acknowledge the important sentiment that lies behind them. I shall make clear what the Government propose in the Bill and in subsequent policy statements. I hope that that will provide the reassurance that hon. Members are seeking.
Amendment No. 208 seeks to exclude from the reservation legislative competence over the provision of railway services, and amendment No. 498 seeks to exclude from the reservation the functions of the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to rail services wholly within Scotland.
The Government have made it plain that we do not think that the privatised railway that we inherited from the previous Administration is structured or run in a way sufficiently responsive, or accountable, to the public interest. We shall be addressing that matter in the transport White Paper, which the Deputy Prime Minister will be bringing to the House very soon, and in the legislation that will be necessary to introduce the new arrangements for rail.
The Government remain committed to maintaining a national rail network, run in the public interest under the auspices of a new rail authority. At present, three different franchise operators run rail services in Scotland, and all three run cross-border services. If the amendment were approved, it is conceivable that the national network and services which cross the England-Scotland border could be put in jeopardy by a Scottish Parliament overturning the framework that governs the operation of railway passenger and goods services on a GB basis. That is not a sensible way of running a national railway. We regard it as essential for the overall regulatory regime to be a reserved matter. The Government are nevertheless committed to delivering a policy that gives appropriate

oversight of Scottish passenger rail services to the Scottish Executive. We propose to do that in the following ways, through provisions in the Bill and the policies and legislation that we shall subsequently introduce.
In regard to passenger rail services that both start and end in Scotland—virtually all the current ScotRail franchise—Scottish Ministers will have sole responsibility for issuing objectives, instructions and guidance to the new rail authority that it is proposed should be established under forthcoming railways legislation. That responsibility will be exercised within the overall Great Britain strategic policy framework for railways, and will allow Scottish Ministers to instruct the rail authority on matters such as service levels and fares policies, within relevant contractual constraints.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister clarify the position relating to ScotRail services that pass through my constituency and terminate at Carlisle?

Mr. McLeish: Those matters will be dealt with in due course. I shall be dealing with a fair amount of rail policy this afternoon.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend honestly think that, when in three years' time he stands at the Dispatch Box at Holyrood rather than Westminster—as he doubtless will—he will be able to persuade his newly elected Scottish colleagues to maintain that position?

Mr. McLeish: I think the answer is yes. I am about to give details of a fairly comprehensive policy in which the Scottish Executive will be involved, which will, I think, go some way towards not only reassuring hon. Members but dealing with my hon. Friend's point.
Financial responsibility for those passenger rail services will be transferred to the Scottish Executive. In the current year, public expenditure on the ScotRail franchise amounts to some £280 million. If the Scottish Executive wishes to procure more rail services, it will be able to do so, but it will of course have to find the additional resources.
The cost of cross-border sleeper services is met from the ScotRail budget. Those services are a particularly important and sensitive issue for Scottish travellers. The Government propose that Scottish Ministers should ultimately be able to issue objectives, instructions and guidance in respect of sleeper services, subject to the rail authority's being satisfied that, in its opinion, they do not have an adverse impact on its non-Scottish budget or on the operation of passenger or freight services generally. In respect of other cross-border services, we propose that Scottish Ministers will be able to issue non-binding guidance. That applies to Virgin and to the Great North Eastern Railway.
We think that, when we are making proposals to achieve true integration of transport in Scotland, it makes obvious sense—within the new GB rail regulatory framework—to give the Scottish Parliament legislative competence over both the bus and the rail responsibilities of the Strathclyde passenger transport authority and executive, and those of any similar body that the Scottish Parliament may establish in due course. We shall consider how best to do that in the context of, and consistent with, the new legislative framework.
Amendment No. 211, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), seeks to ensure that the continued reservation of section 136 of the Railways Act 1993 deals only with legislative competence as to who may be a competent authority in relation to EC regulations about the financial status of railway undertakings. The Government intend the Scottish Parliament to have competence over the provision of grants for railway services, excluding the carriage of freight. We accept that the current drafting of the reservation of section 136 may be wider than was intended; we undertake to consider that and, if necessary, table an appropriate amendment later.

Mr. Dalyell: In preparation for the supplementary to my Question 33 to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions this afternoon—which dealt with investment in the west coast main line—I spoke to Mr. Lew Adams of ASLEF, who told me that a vast amount of investment was needed for, in particular, the Scottish section of the line. Under the new set-up, who will be responsible for that investment? Will it come from the Scottish Parliament's budget?

Mr. McLeish: No. The reconstruction of the west coast main line will be a matter for my colleagues at Westminster, and for the new rail authority. Obviously, it will have significant implications for Scotland, and that will be one of the issues involved in dealing with ScotRail. It is mostly self-contained in Scotland, but we need to involve ourselves with other services that operate across the border.
Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South, have pointed out that, under the Bill's current provisions, the promoter of a new railway in Scotland would have to come to the Westminster Parliament for any necessary powers to proceed with construction. That would be done under existing private legislation procedures. I appreciate that there is some dissatisfaction with the private legislation procedure that is available to Scottish promoters, but the procedure is not the issue. As it stands, the Bill reserves the provision of railway services to Westminster. The Government, however, are prepared to reconsider the point in the context of the new regulatory arrangements that we shall propose for railways, with a view to ensuring that promoters of new railways, stations and maintenance depots in Scotland will be able to seek any necessary powers for proceeding with construction from the Scottish Parliament.
The detailed provisions required will need to be considered alongside the new rail legislation. On the presumption that a change to schedule 5 of the Bill will be needed, that will be secured either through the procedure set out in clause 29 or through new legislation.
Amendment No. 210 would have the effect of devolving legislative competence in respect of the carriage of goods, including grants for freight facilities and track access. It would thus be open to the Scottish Parliament to enact legislation on the carriage of goods on the Scottish rail network, and to introduce new freight grant schemes. We believe that such an arrangement would run counter to our policy of maintaining a national

rail network, and could lead to confusion among applicants for grants, with different criteria being used to assess applications north and south of the border. The Bill already provides for the devolution of grant-making powers for passenger services and for executive devolution of responsibility—within the GB policy framework, of course—for the administration of freight facilities grants and track access grants.
The Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland and the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee play a significant role in representing the perspective of users of the privatised railway. Provision will be made for Scottish Ministers to appoint the chairman of the Rail Users Consultative Committee for Scotland. Provision will also be made for the annual reports of both committees to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
Amendment No. 498 proposes that the Scottish Parliament may require Railtrack and the operators of franchised rail services in Scotland to report to it. As hon. Members will know, Railtrack and the train operating companies are fully privatised. No such powers are currently available to this Parliament, and the question of devolution therefore does not arise.
I hope that that full explanation of the Government's intentions in regard to rail matters will reassure hon. Members that we are committed to securing a significant, central and responsible role in respect of rail services in Scotland, and that they will not press their amendments.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Is the Minister going to deal with amendment No. 481? If so, may I ask him about it then?

Mr. McLeish: No doubt the hon. Lady is becoming slightly impatient, but I am about to deal with the amendment.
The Government do not accept amendment No. 481, which seeks to reserve the matter of financial assistance to shipping services that both start and finish outside Scotland. The Bill currently reserves assistance for shipping services that start or finish, or both, outside Scotland, and provides that financial assistance for shipping services operating wholly within Scotland will be a devolved matter.
The Government agree that shipping services between Scotland and other countries are of economic significance to Scotland. However, the intention of the Bill is to give the Scottish Parliament appropriate powers to maintain and develop the internal shipping services that it considers necessary for the maintenance and improvement of economic and social conditions in Scotland, particularly in island and remote highland communities. The amendment would give the Scottish Parliament and Executive competence over financial assistance for existing or new external shipping services?

Mrs. Michie: Which shipping services that start or finish, or both, outside Scotland currently receive financial assistance? Will the Minister confirm that the Scottish Parliament will have nothing to do with the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service? After all, that service was set up jointly by the Scottish and the Northern Ireland Offices. The South Antrim Steam Packet Company has gone off with the Caledonian MacBrayne Claymore boat, and has to lease it back to Caledonian


MacBrayne during the winter. Surely to goodness the Scottish Office or the Scottish Parliament will still have something to do with that service.

Mr. McLeish: I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are concerned about the development that she has mentioned. We are looking at it closely. After the service was established, boats were taken out of commission in a pick-and-choose way to service other parts of the United Kingdom, which does not make for consistency or coherence. Unfortunately, a private initiative is involved, but the Government are watching the situation carefully. Our main concern is to represent the interests of the people of Scotland. I shall write to the hon. Lady about the up-to-date position. In terms of her first question, I do not think that she would expect me to know where all services start and finish. However, as a matter of courtesy, I shall be happy to provide information on that.

Mr. Swayne: Is the fact that the Minister is looking closely at the matter not in itself an argument for devolving it to the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. McLeish: No, it is more a case of ensuring that, when a service route is set up, it should be proceeded with. The service that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) mentioned was not a good one in that the operators were allowed to take out ferries when they wished. In a sense, that service was provided because of the lack of any other. It could have been a good idea at the time, but the Government must carefully watch what is being done. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are worried about that issue and I hope that we shall not see a repeat of the problem.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I seek clarification. There is a proposal, which is at an early stage, to operate a hovercraft service from Kirkcudbright to the Isle of Man. Is the Minister saying that the Scottish Parliament would have no locus in the setting up of that service?

Mr. McLeish: I think that that is the case, but I am not aware of the details of the proposal. I should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman if he would furnish those, as that would enable me to respond in the context of what I have said.
The Government consider that services between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are best dealt with on a UK-wide basis as they are as much the concern of the other parts of the UK that are connected to Scotland by them as they are of Scotland. Further, the devolution of international shipping services to or from Scotland would be inconsistent with the general reservation of international matters, including trade. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.

Dr. Godman: I support amendments Nos. 537 to 544, but I have a couple of observations and I should like to ask some questions. In his lively speech, which was his maiden speech from the exalted position of the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke several times about Caledonian MacBrayne. I remind the Minister that he has promised to meet me, Mr. James McKnight, Mr. Steve Todd and

Councillor Harry Mulholland, the leader of Inverclyde council, to discuss Caledonian MacBrayne in relation to the Deloitte and Touche report.
On page 70, schedule 5 contains the heading "Exceptions from reservation". The amendments propose some changes. I refer the Minister to the part under the heading which states:
Regulation of works which may obstruct or endanger navigation.
That makes good sense, especially in terms of harbours and the coastline, but I should like to see it extended to include fishing operations. I am thinking of our inshore fishermen and especially those who use static gear and whose livelihoods may be affected by work of one kind or another such as, for example, the laying of gas pipelines and other such works that have to start on shore. If the livelihood of a static gear fisherman is threatened, could he or she—I appreciate that most of them are men—appeal to the Scottish Parliament, and would it be able to help?
Perhaps the Minister will say that static gear fishermen and other inshore fishermen are protected by other legislation. If that is the case, well and good, but works of the type that I have mentioned, such as the laying of pipelines or the installation of offshore ribs, could displace our fishermen. Therefore, it is right to have an exemption to cover obstruction or the endangering of navigation, but it needs to go further in the interests of our fishermen. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that such fishermen are protected by extant legislation, or he will say that he will look again at the issue of regulating construction work in the interests of our fishermen.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I have a couple of questions about sections 41 to 50 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I am glad that the Government have tabled amendment No. 541. which limits the number of clauses from that Act to be devolved. I am slightly concerned about the detail of how the Act will work in terms of devolving power. Section 41 of the 1982 Act will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, under that section, the Secretary of State has power to acquire and manage land for civil aviation purposes.
Section 41(3) states:
nothing in this subsection shall be taken to affect the operation of section 5 of the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act 1916 (which confers on a person from whom land was acquired under that Act a right of pre-emption in the case of the subsequent sale of the land) as respects any land acquired under that Act.
In the event of land being required for aviation purposes pursuant to a decision of the Scottish Parliament becoming redundant for those purposes, would the Scottish Parliament be able to overrule the provisions of the 1916 Act and refuse the person from whom the land was acquired the right to its return, as would apply in the rest of the United Kingdom? It is a small point of detail, but it could affect the rights of people in Scotland and may end up in a constitutional argument between the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments about whether the Scottish Parliament would have the right to refuse to return to a citizen land that was acquired under its powers of compulsory purchase. Such a right would not prevail in England and Wales.

Mr. McLeish: I shall deal first with the questions about the Civil Aviation Act. Plainly, I am not able now to give


details about that, but I promise to investigate the matter and to write to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on his detailed point. I give the same undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) in the context of protection for fishermen and fishing. I shall write to my hon. Friend about that, but on the Caledonian MacBrayne issue as it affects his area, I can confirm that we have agreed to have a meeting. I look forward to that being established at the earliest possible date. We are about to have the report on the ferries that we want to discuss and, obviously, such a meeting would be opportune.

Mr. Ancram: In the light of the number of letters that the Minister proposes to send to hon. Members, could he assure the Committee that he will make those available in the Library for the rest of us?

Mr. McLeish: We are nearing the end of the Committee stage but, out of courtesy, that will be done in all cases. Copies will be placed in the Library and sent to the leaders of the political parties.

Mr. Gorrie: My hon. Friends and I will have to look carefully at the Minister's written words. We still think that the distinction between those aspects of transport that will be regulated in Scotland and those that will be regulated in Westminster is not as clear as it should be. We reserve the right to raise them in a different way.
The answer to amendment No. 495, which is about the licensing of buses, seemed particularly unsatisfactory. Just because a few buses go across the border is not a reason for the Scottish Parliament not to have the right to regulate the 90-odd per cent. of buses that run purely within Scotland. That seems to be a weak argument. The Scottish Parliament may wish to adopt different public transport policies, which would involve different licensing. So long as they were safe and met international standards, the Parliament should be allowed to do that. However, we wish to concentrate on specific transport issues at a later stage and, for that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 533, in page 69, line 10, at beginning insert 'The subject-matter of.

No. 534, in page 69, line 34, at end insert—
'(aa) the Hovercraft Act 1968, except so far as relating to the regulation of noise and vibration caused by hovercraft,'.

No. 535, in page 69, line 35, at end insert—
'(bb) section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 (prohibition on approaching dangerous wrecks),'.

No. 536, in page 69, line 36, at end insert—
'(cc) the Dangerous Vessels Act 1985,'.

No. 537, in page 70, line 5, leave out 'marine works' and insert 'boatslips'.

No. 538, in page 70, line 6, leave out 'in (d) above' and insert
'by virtue of paragraph (bb), (cc), (d) or (f)'.

No. 539, in page 70, leave out lines 14 to 16. No. 540, in page 70, line 34, at end insert—
'() section 31 (power to carry on ancillary business in connection with local authority aerodromes),'.

No. 541, in page 70, line 39, after '41 to', insert '43 and'.

No. 542, in page 70, line 40, after 'is', insert 'to be or was'.

No. 543, in page 70, line 44, at end insert—
'The subject-matter of section 59 (acquisition of land and rights over land) and section 60 (disposal of compulsorily acquired land) of the Airports Act 1986 where land is to be or was acquired for the purpose of airport development or expansion.'.

No. 544, in page 71, line 4, leave out 'Standards' and insert 'Technical specifications'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 406, in page 71, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 72.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments: No. 268, in page 71, leave out lines 17 to 23 and insert—
'The specific subject matter of any United Kingdom legislation which provides for assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals by way of benefits and the circumstances directly arising from such legislation in which a person is liable to maintain himself or another.'.
No. 499, in page 71, line 29, leave out from 'Fund' to 'recovery' in line 30.
No. 270, in page 71, line 29, leave out 'administration and'.
Government amendment No. 545.
No. 271, in page 71, line 31, leave out from 'damages' to end of line 34.
Government amendment No. 546.
No. 269, in page 71, line 36, at beginning insert—
'The administration of schemes providing assistance for social security purposes to or in respect of individuals by way of benefits.'.
Government amendment No. 547.
No. 500, in page 71, line 39, after 'need),' insert '25'.
Government amendment No. 548.
No. 482, in page 71, line 42, at end insert—
'Non-contributory benefits'.
Government amendments Nos. 549 and 550.

Mr. Heald: You will remember, Mr. Lord, that last night when you were in the Chair, there was a good deal of criticism from certain hon. Members-the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), for example-about the fact that Opposition amendments proposed that law and order issues should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. What was said at that time was, "What about the social issues-the issues of social justice?" With amendment No. 406, we have the opportunity to devolve social security schemes to the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) shakes his head, but this is something with which he might, on mature reflection, agree.

Mr. John McAllion: I am not mature.

Mr. Heald: Who am I to disagree with the hon. Gentleman?
My first point is that the purpose of a social security system must be to meet people's individual needs and circumstances at the most appropriate level and as close as possible to the individual. That allows for the effective targeting of benefits in the context in which the individual lives. Similarly, in a democracy, if the Scottish Parliament is to deal with domestic Scottish matters, what could be more important than helping people in need and providing them with security?
International trends in recent years show that there is international recognition now that what works best is vigorous case management in the welfare sector and a customised approach. Since last July, America has gone from a federal system of welfare to a state-based system, where payments are made by block grant to the state and considerable discretion is given to meet local needs.
The effect has been to encourage further devolution down the chain to political units below state level, such as the counties. If it is possible for the United States to do that, it is something that we should consider. In addition, American states are able to enhance the benefits that they give to individuals from state taxes and to launch new schemes within certain parameters of the legislation.

Mr. Frank Roy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is still a federal system of social security in the United States?

Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the devolved schemes that I have described come under the temporary assistance to needy families scheme. Of course, some schemes are not devolved, but those that are deal with issues such as income support and the key issues for families, and I believe that it is right that we should examine them in the context of a Scottish Parliament.
In the UK, the trend has been to try to devolve such issues to local level. That is best seen in relation to care in the community, where the approach has been to make money that was previously delivered through the income support system to pay nursing and care home fees a local government responsibility. Of course, there are criticisms of the system—no one can deny that—but I do not know many people who seriously argue that we should go back to the old system.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talks about local need. I am listening carefully to him, but am I right in thinking that his amendment would sweep away parts of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968? I remind him that section 10 of the Act allows social work departments to give financial assistance to people in extreme need. Let me give him an example from my constituency, where a woman in need and her three children were provided with some financial assistance by way of section 10 of the very Act that he would sweep away.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that I do not believe that he is correct. Amendment No. 406 suggests that none of the social security schemes should be reserved, which means that the administration of those particular benefits would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. As he will see, all of them would then come within the compass of the Scottish Parliament. One of the regrettable things about one of the Government

amendments is that it takes out community care direct payments—one of the small number of social security-style benefits that the Scottish Parliament was going to be able to deal with—so that the Parliament will have even less to administer.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question, or the same type of question, as I asked the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), although I do not expect the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to be able to answer it offhand? What are the costs of unbundling the social security system of the United Kingdom? The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), is here and we welcome his presence. It may be that he will whisper in the ear of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. What are the costs of disentangling—dewiring—the Blackpool centre or the Newcastle centre? It is an enormously complicated operation, I suspect.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks a question to which I confess I do not know the answer—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security laughs, but we have come across situations where he had no better idea than I did.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: Let me finish, if I may.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow must recognise that the system that the Bill puts in place involves the Scottish Parliament incurring costs in respect of social security. Every time the tax-varying power is used, the net incomes of numerous people in Scotland who claim benefits will be reduced, which will mean that extra social security payments will have to be made.
In the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum, the figure is put at about £5 million a year, if the power is used. For personal pensions, the cost would be about £4 million. The set-up costs that are set out in the Bill amount to a further significant figure, so the hon. Member for Linlithgow is right that costs are involved in changing the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK in respect of social security. However, there is also a prize to be won. Is not the ability to deliver benefits at local level such a valuable one that it overrides some of the short-term costs that will arise in reprogramming computers and so on? I do not believe that it would be an impossible task. One has only to consider the working families tax credit, which involves substantial changes to the benefits system, or some of the other changes that have been introduced over the years. They have all been done at a cost, but not at disproportionate cost. It is for the Government, rather than the Opposition, to say what the costs will be. I look forward to hearing from the Minister a detailed account of the costs involved.
Another issue concerns expectations. Many people in Scotland believe, as a result of what was said in the referendum campaign and before, that Scottish representatives in the Parliament will be able to have a serious effect on the lives of individuals in need. If all the most important areas of policy are left at Westminster, people's hopes are bound to be cast down. I ask the Minister to take that into account when considering whether the social security system should be devolved.
Why should the system not be devolved? The Minister may say that it cannot be done—that it is too difficult to separate the structures. I believe that, if it can be done in the United States, which has a far more complicated structure than we do, it can be done here. The Minister may say that it will create different systems on either side of the border. However, he is prepared to have different systems on either side of the border to deal with a whole range of matters, including health, education and law and order, so that argument will not wash. The Minister may say that it cannot be done because it is too difficult to settle the finance. Since part of the finance has already been separated through the tax-raising power and since certain separate arrangements have already been made for social security, that argument does not wash either.
I believe that the Government have decided not to devolve social security, not for any of the reasons I have given, but because they do not trust a Scottish Parliament to make the decisions on welfare that they believe should be made here at Westminster.

Mr. Browne: We have already had a contribution from the Opposition Front Bench from an hon. Member who did not know that there was a separate legal system in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that on the examples he has given to illustrate the difference—health, education and criminal justice—we already have distinctly different procedures in Scotland?

Mr. Heald: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. He cannot expect me to read out every single power that is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Heald: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
I want to explain why the Government have decided that they do not trust the Scottish Parliament on welfare. I think that it is because they believe that there is a strong demand in Scotland for a welfare agenda that is different from their own. We can look at what happened recently over single parent benefit. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) stood up for what he believed was the proper approach on that issue. I do not agree with him, but he did take a stand.
We can look at who led the way in Scotland in strongly opposing any undermining of disability benefits. There is a list of Labour Members that would be recognisable to anyone in the House: it includes the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman mispronounced Greenock.

Mr. Heald: I do not think that that is the hon. Gentleman's best point.
Those hon. Members are known in the House as people who stand for a different view on welfare benefits from that expressed from the Government Front Bench.
That also applies to the way in which the benefit appeals system works. The hon. Member for Maryhill has taken a stand on that and has put forward her view about how the independent tribunal service should be changed.
It would be worse still for the Government if the opinion polls are right and a Scottish National party-Liberal Democrat Administration were formed with the Secretary of State as the Leader of the Opposition in a Scottish Parliament. Who supported my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on the wind chill factor legislation? Who supported him on the cold weather payments? The list includes SNP Members such as the hon. Members for Perth (Ms Cunningham), for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—[Interruption.] I thought I pronounced Moray correctly. The Minister and his hon. Friends will not avoid the argument by criticising my pronunciation.
On important issues such as the wind chill factor and cold weather payments, the hon. Members for Moray and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and the hon. and learned Members for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are leading campaigners, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, for a totally different view. When the Government were in opposition, almost every one of the Scottish Members backed that proposition on the wind chill factor. The Government fear that there would be trouble at home. They believe that all the Scottish Members who have genuine beliefs would stand up to the manufactured product on the Government Front Bench.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is second in line.

Mrs. Fyfe: We are all glad to hear the hon. Gentleman display his familiarity with Scotland in his pronunciation of our place names. I must point out to him that, when I complain about the length of time that people have to wait for benefit issues to be resolved by an independent tribunal, I am calling for reform for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Scotland.

Mr. Heald: That is the case now, but is the hon. Lady saying that the Scottish Parliament should not be able to regularise the matter for Scotland? I doubt whether she is, given her credentials on devolution.

Mr. Salmond: Can the second in line have a chance now?

Mr. Heald: Yes.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman said that when Labour Members were in opposition, they were enthusiastic about the proposition on the wind chill factor. Can the hon. Gentleman remind us of the previous Government's position?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the debate on this issue, the then Government made it clear that the matter should be fully reviewed by the experts,


and it was. What is more, the present Government did not follow the advice. There is no reason for Opposition Front Benchers to take any criticism on that. As we are currently standing shoulder to shoulder with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) perhaps he should support us. [Interruption.] This is one of the few issues where that occurs.
As with so much of the Bill and the general approach to devolution, the Government duck difficult questions and embarrassing issues. They try to sweep them under the carpet. It is no good looking at the opinion polls in Scotland and despairing, as the Government must, because people in Scotland are no doubt saying that, when it comes to a serious issue, Henry is hiding from it, Calum is concealing himself from it and Donald is ducking it.

Mr. McAllion: The longer the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke, the more he was being deserted by his hon. Friends. He is now left with the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who will sit through just about anything to prove her loyalty to the party.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that perhaps the argument is over?

Mr. McAllion: I did not understand the question, never mind wanting to provide an answer. [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It is important that hon. Members returning to the Chamber are conscious of who is on their feet. They should not walk through their line of vision.

Mr. McAllion: As I said, Mr. Lord, I was worried about speaking to this group of amendments after hearing the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, speak to the previous group of amendments. He said that he was dismayed by the number of home rule Members who were speaking in favour of reserving matters to the Westminster Parliament, rather than of sending them to the Scottish Parliament, and commented on what fun it was to watch us all running in fear of the "smack of discipline". I suspect that Tory Members are much more adept at taking the smack of discipline than are Labour Members.
I am delighted to discover that I am able to oppose a Tory amendment—amendment No. 406, which would devolve responsibility for social security to the Scottish Parliament. I have never believed that social security issues should be devolved to a Scottish Parliament for several reasons, one of which is very principled—the limits of poverty cannot be defined by geographical boundaries. Poverty is a class—not a nationalist—issue. I am as concerned about the poor in the centre of London, in Birmingham, in the midlands and in the north of England as I am about the poor in Scotland. It is certainly a matter of principle that, regardless of where one lives in the United Kingdom, one should have access to exactly the same benefits as everyone else in this Kingdom.
6 pm
There are also practical reasons why a big problem would be caused by establishing different benefit levels in different parts of the United Kingdom, and they cannot

merely be shrugged off, as the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire tried to do in his short speech. Let us think about it. If there is a higher—or lower—benefit level in Scotland, what will people on benefit do? They will go to the part of the country where they think they will receive the most housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support and jobseeker' s allowance.
Ultimately, we might have to patrol the borders—just as they do in America, which has patrols on its border with Mexico. The Americans turn back the Mexican poor. They will not give them access to the United States. People who envisage aping such a system and say that they are trying to help the poor will only hurt the poor. They will only make our country like America, which is the last thing that I want to do.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that substantially better social security benefits are available in other European countries. People here would be entitled to those benefits if they chose to move. Why has there not been a mass exodus to, for example, the south of France, to take advantage of them?

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman ever speaks to anyone on benefit in Whitfield, he may come to understand why there has not been a mass exodus to the south of France. It is not really a practical proposition. However, it is practical for people from Dundee to move south. Time and again, I deal with such people in my constituency. Poor people regularly move across the border separating Scotland and England, but they almost never move to France, Germany or Italy. Perhaps the situation is different in Banff and Buchan—it may well be.

Mr. Salmond: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to tell us about the movement of poor people between Spain and France. Does he have any knowledge of that movement? Does he think that the substantial differences in social security between those two countries is a significant factor in that movement?

Mr. McAllion: I have some knowledge of the differences between Spain and France, but I live in Scotland, which shares a border with England. I am speaking about Scotland and England, not Spain and France. If the hon. Gentleman walks out on to the streets outside, he will find poor Scots from every city in Scotland. They come to London looking for help and for benefit. He is trying to minimise a very serious problem. It would be absolute nonsense to establish a different social security system in Scotland from that which pertains in the other parts of this island. If he does not know that, he should immediately come to his senses.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that some aspects of social security policy, such as
National Assistance … charges for local authority accommodation … social welfare services …payments towards maintenance of children …promotion of welfare of children in need",
will be matters for the Scottish Parliament? The same is not true of some of the major and important schemes, such as income support and family credit. How can it be right that, when the first real sniff of responsibility in social security is offered by the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman rejects it out of hand?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in confusing the type of payments that should be made


through local authority social work departments with the type of payments that are made through the social security system, which is run at a United Kingdom level. He does not live in Scotland. If he did live in Scotland and understood the social security system, he would not make such inane interventions. The two systems cannot be compared.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: rose—

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who used to live in Scotland, because we know that she read the Herald.

Mrs. Laing: Did the hon. Gentleman really mean what he said a moment ago—that Scots come south to London looking for benefit? I thought that we came south to London looking for work.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member for Epping Forest forgets that we live in a capitalist system, and that those people, after they get here, do not find work. They are thrown on to benefit, and into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and all kinds of horrors—which not only poor Scots in London but poor Londoners have to face.
A capitalist system is a wonderful thing if one gets to the top, with a good job and a nice house. However, for the poor and those without power, wealth or resources—from the other end of the telescope, which has been mentioned earlier in the debate—the system is not so marvellous. If the hon. Member for Epping Forest saw the capitalist system through their eyes, she might understand that we need a socialist system in the United Kingdom—all of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the regrettable problem to which he referred—the number of Scots in London who are on benefit but came looking for work—exists under the current unified social security system? Therefore, there is potential—if the Scottish Parliament has control over its own system—to improve the situation.

Mr. McAllion: The problem with the current social security system is not that it is unified across the United Kingdom but that it is under-resourced. The solution to the problem is not to break up the United Kingdom social security system. I passionately believe that people—from whatever part of this island they come—have the same rights to the same social security benefits. I hold to that basic principle, which is why I shall gladly oppose amendment No. 406.
I should like to raise several issues with my hon. Friend the Minister. We have been told that funding and administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit should be a reserved matter. The Bill states that
administration and funding of housing benefit and council tax benefit by local authorities
are illustrations of reservation. Why will Government amendment No. 545 remove the phrase "by local authorities"? I hope that that does not mean that the

Government plan on taking responsibility for administration of housing benefit from local authorities and on establishing a new system in Scotland to administer housing benefit. I should like an answer to that question.
The housing benefit level is very closely linked to rent levels in the rented sector. As my hon. Friend knows, the rented sector in Scotland is dominated by local authorities—which are by far the largest element in the rented sector. The voluntary and private sectors are minuscule compared with the Scottish council sector. He knows also that funding to maintain low rents—such as housing support grants and rate fund contributions—was gradually withdrawn by successive Tory Governments. Consequently, rents went ever upwards, and housing benefit levels went up with them. The last figure that I saw, which is out of date, was that housing benefit in Scotland is costing about £900 million annually.
The only sure way of reducing that housing benefit level is to reduce the rent levels that must be paid by those on low incomes. Rent level reductions can be achieved only by co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and local authorities. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to find funding to allow local authorities to reduce rents, and thereby to reduce the housing benefit bill.
What worries me is that the Scottish Parliament, if it spends some of its scarce resources on bringing down rent levels, will not gain the benefits of those reductions. The benefits will accrue to the Westminster Parliament, which will have a much-reduced housing benefit bill. I should like to know how those benefits can accrue to the Scottish Parliament, rather than being transferred to the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the extension of that point? Under the Government's proposals, it would be a temptation—although not in any administration in which I was involved—to increase rents, to increase the flow of housing benefit.

Mr. McAllion: It is not only a temptation—it happens in the real world. Every hon. Member representing a constituency in Scotland is aware that councils starved of cash simply raise rents. They know that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of their tenants receive housing benefit and that someone else will pay the bill. We have to break out of that trap. I am trying to get the Government so say how they intend to fund the method by which we bring down rents in Scotland, and I hope that the actions of the Scottish Parliament in doing that will be rewarded by the savings in housing benefit being transferred back to it.
While I am talking about housing, may I ask my hon. Friend to give some thought to the stock transfer process, and especially the stock of Scottish Homes, which is being transferred into the voluntary sector? While we had Scottish Homes, the old Scottish Special Housing Association, housing benefit for its tenants was administered by Scottish Homes itself.
Of course, now that Scottish Homes has ceased to be a landlord and its tenants are being transferred into the voluntary sector, the claims for housing benefit are placed on the local authority in the appropriate area. However, local authorities have not been recompensed for the additional burden that they have had to take on as a result of voluntary stock transfers. I should be interested to know what the Government intend to do about that.
I deal now with the other payments made by social work departments, in respect of social security in particular. I am very conscious of the work of welfare rights officers who do a tremendous amount of good across Scotland, helping people with their benefit claims. They are funded solely through social work departments and the local authorities themselves, even though they are an integral part of the social security system in Scotland. It is unfair that local authorities are not recompensed for the fact that they employ welfare rights officers to help the smooth operation of the benefit system. Have the Government any plans to tackle that problem?
Finally, I draw attention to the operation of the social security system and the fact that, for example, the jobseeker's allowance regime and the benefit integrity project are forcing people off benefit. This sometimes has the effect of forcing people into abject poverty and out of the social security system. People in such circumstances often turn to the local authority for assistance, and it is the social work department that has to pick up the bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about a family in his constituency who had to get section 10 payments under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 because the system failed them. It is unfair to expect the Scottish Parliament and local authorities to provide a safety net for people who have been swept out of the social security system by changes implemented at Westminster.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire said that there was a strong demand in Scotland for a different approach to social security. I deny that in the sense that it is not only in Scotland that such a demand exists. He also mentioned the cuts to the single parent benefit. Forty-seven Labour Members voted against those cuts, and only a minority came from Scotland—the vast majority came from England.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire also mentioned the reduction in disability benefits and the fact that many Scottish Members of Parliament opposed it. However, many English Members did the same—has the hon. Gentleman never heard of the Campaign group of socialist Members of Parliament which has been united in opposition to such cuts? Most of the group's members come from English constituencies. There is no geographical difference in the approach to social security; there is a class difference, but not a geographical one.
I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was a parliamentary private secretary under the previous Government who opposed the taking into account of the wind chill factor in cold weather payments. He had the chance to do something, but now, in opposition, has the nerve to lecture the incoming Government, despite the shortcomings of the Tories when they were in power.

Mr. John Swinney: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. The best that could be said about the main Tory amendment is that it is a probing amendment, although how far it probed, I am not terribly sure, because many of the details necessary to enable us to come to a considered judgment about it were sadly lacking in what we heard.
6.15 pm
I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will take heart from the proposals that I intend to make in speaking to amendments Nos. 268 to 271. Their purpose is to provide the Scottish Parliament with additional powers to develop welfare initiatives and to enable it to have a role in the administration of social security. Their origin lies primarily in the thinking of the Scottish Constitutional Convention which, in 1990, called for the administration of social security to be a devolved function. In 1995, it softened that commitment somewhat and asserted that
Scotland's Parliament will co-operate with the Scottish offices of the Department of Social Security"—

Mr. James Wallace: Why was not the hon. Gentleman in there supporting us?

Mr. Swinney: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that I have come to the rescue of the proposals that he submitted and supported at that time. The convention's documents from those periods supported the notion that the administration of social security should be a devolved function, and I am glad to have the opportunity to remind Labour and Liberal Democrat Members of previous commitments.
Those commitments, which recognised the distinctive interest of Scotland in the provision of welfare support, were important in setting out the role of the Scottish Parliament in deciding how best to administer social security issues from a Scottish perspective.
Amendments Nos. 268 to 271 would give the Parliament the ability to supplement social security provision from Westminster. They would not reduce any benefit level produced by the United Kingdom social security system, but the Scottish Parliament could, for example, provide a Christmas bonus for pensioners or deliver cold weather payments, although we hope that it would do so when the weather was cold, rather than in the spring.
The amendments would also give the Parliament a say in the administration of social security issues, and we have heard examples of the important effect that that could have. In rural areas such as the constituency that I represent, claimants of benefits have grave difficulties in getting to the premises of the Employment Service because of transport problems. I am sure that in tackling such issues, a Scottish Parliament could make a material difference to the way in which benefits are administered. The Parliament could undertake initiatives—

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Swinney: I am short of time, and the hon. Gentleman spoke for far too long and made a rather irrelevant speech, so I will not take interventions from him.
The Parliament could undertake initiatives to ensure that a higher proportion of elderly or disabled people took up the full benefits to which they were entitled. The hon. Member for Dundee, East also referred to the benefit integrity project. Hon. Members of all parties recognise that there are grave concerns about this project and how it is going about its business. I like to think that a Scottish Parliament could insist that before any decision was made


to reduce the benefit of an individual, the claimant could be the subject of a medical examination before a form adjudicator simply scrubbed out his benefit. The Government have made some important concessions—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) says that that is already happening. A couple of weeks ago, I met a lady whose benefits were cut in October, before the revised benefit integrity project rules came into play. She has lost some benefit, but the Government are not planning to reconsider her case—that is the reality of what is happening.
I should like a Scottish Parliament to exercise a judgment and insist that before decisions are taken on the administration of social security, the necessary safeguards and quality judgments are made in every respect. A strict code of conduct for adjudication officers would guarantee that individuals were treated properly and fairly.
All of the initiatives to which I have referred would be possible only if the Parliament had powers to decide how to deploy its resources. That choice should be open to the Parliament, and it is a choice that this House should give it.
I am about to conclude my remarks in order to give the Minister the opportunity to sum up in his usual fashion. There is enormous concern about welfare issues. Last Thursday, we saw the first dipping of the Government's toe in the water of welfare reform, but the Green Paper did not tackle much of the unease in our community. When the Scottish Labour party conference is delivering some fairly stiff judgments on the Government's record on welfare, a role for the Scottish Parliament in the administration of social security benefits is fundamental.
I have consulted many voluntary sector organisations in Scotland, including the Poverty Alliance, the Scottish Old Age Pensions Association, the Scottish Out of School Network, Care in the Community, the Scottish Support for Learning Association, the Scottish Ethnic Minorities Unit, Age Concern Scotland and the Rural Forum. All of them have given a positive welcome to the amendments to which I am speaking.
The consensus in Scotland is that we want to improve welfare benefits and the administration of the welfare system. We demand a civilised welfare system, and I hope that the Government will endorse our modest proposals to ensure that that is the case.

Mr. McLeish: In the two minutes I have available, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 545 to 550. Their purpose is essentially to clarify certain parts of section 1 of head 6. I hope that the Committee will agree that they are helpful.
I am not persuaded by any of arguments from the nationalists or the Conservatives. The Government remain responsible for the national social security benefits system. They should be responsible and accountable for the delivery of benefits as well as for the benefits themselves. Neither should it be possible for the Scottish Parliament to set up an alternative or additional social security system for inventing new schemes. That would be prohibitive in terms of cost and would undermine the United Kingdom approach to social security matters.
I understand that the nationalists have a separatist agenda; they want every responsibility at Westminster to be transferred to Scotland. However, once again the

performance of the Conservatives was quite remarkable. They are being quite irresponsible in suggesting changes without considering the costs. They do not want the social security system to be devolved to Scotland. Once again they are mischief making and, while they embrace the concept, they are still a long way from embracing any sensible detail about a way forward.

Mr. Heald: All I would say in reply—

It being one hour and forty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: No. 545, in page 71, line 30, leave out 'by local authorities'.

No. 546, in page 71, line 31, after 'damages', insert
'deductions from benefits for the purpose of meeting an individual's debts'.

No. 547, in page 71, line 38, after 'services)', insert
'section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (provision of welfare services)'.

No. 548, in page 71, line 41, leave out from '1995' to end of line 42.

No. 549, in page 72, line 6, leave out from 'taxes' to end of line 7.

No. 550, in page 72, line 15, leave out 'are enactments' and insert 'is'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. A number of us would have liked to have contributed to the previous debate, but were clamped down by time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am sure that, by now, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of how the Committee is being operated. It is up to hon. Members to study carefully the time allowed and to allocate their speaking time accordingly.

Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 412, in page 73, line 38, at end add—
'Laws of procedure and evidence in disciplinary hearings.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 501, in page 73, line 42, leave out 'the Dentists Act 1984'.

Mr. Wallace: Perhaps we shall be able to make up some time as the points that I wish to make in support of the amendments are very brief.
Although regulation of the health professions would remain a reserved matter, under amendment No. 412, the laws of procedure and evidence in disciplinary hearings would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
The reason for the amendment rests in a case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that was reported in 1993. I should add that the Privy Council committee included two Scottish Law Lords. A Glasgow general practitioner was charged with professional misconduct. Notwithstanding that the case was heard in Scotland and that all the events relating to it had taken place in Scotland, the Judicial Committee of the


Privy Council held that Scots law was irrelevant to the evidence and procedure to be applied, and that the law of England had to apply to such disciplinary hearings.
It seems perverse that the law of England should prevail in a United Kingdom body. As the Treaty of Union acknowledged, the laws of Scotland and England have equal status. If, as was decided in the case to which I referred, the law of England should apply, despite the evidence, despite the fact that all the events took place in Scotland and despite the fact that the hearing sat in Scotland, that seems a perverse outcome. It is not unreasonable that the Scottish Parliament should have at least the opportunity to regulate that.
Amendment No. 501 would remove the Dentists Act 1984 from the interpretation of the health professions. As things stand, the General Dental Council would be subject to Westminster and not to the Scottish Parliament. When my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and I drew that point to the attention of representatives of the British Dental Association earlier this year, they said, "How interesting—no one ever asked us whether we wanted London to continue determining these matters. In fact, we see many advantages of Edinburgh doing so." At the very least, the Government owe us an explanation about what consultation took place with the British Dental Association in Scotland and other organisations. Has it just been assumed that everyone wanted the continuation of rule from England?

Mr. McLeish: Amendment No. 412 seeks to except from the reservation of the regulation of the health professions the laws of procedure and evidence in disciplinary hearings of those professions, although, as drafted, it relates only to dentists' disciplinary hearings. Let me explain why that would not be desirable.
The medical professional bodies have welcomed the reservation of the regulation of the health professions as a necessary way in which to maintain the current high standards in those professions. As part of their regulatory activities, the health professional bodies make their own rules relating to procedure and evidence at professional disciplinary hearings.
Rules for medical disciplinary hearings are, except for nurses, approved by the Privy Council on a GB basis. In the case of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, it is proposed that the function of the Lord Advocate of approving separate rules for Scotland should be transferred to Scottish Ministers in the executive devolution order in order to maintain the current position. As a consequence, I am not persuaded by the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that there is a need to change current practice by excepting such matters from the reservation.
The effect of amendment No. 501 would be to make dentists the only group of health care professionals whose qualifications, registration and standards of professional competence and conduct would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. I cannot see that there is any argument for singling out dentists from this group.
In some parts of Scotland, however, we have inherited difficulties of access to national health service dentistry and we are committed to tackling those, improving standards of oral health and restoring patient choice. Such

matters do not fall within the scope of the Dentists Act. In view of my comments I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell us first the policy consideration whereby the Government think it a good idea that when disciplinary events relate to Scotland and are dealt with in Scotland, the law of evidence and procedure should be English law? Secondly, what consultation was there with Scottish members of the British Dental Association before the Government decided not to devolve that particular responsibility?

Mr. McLeish: The first point relates to the workability of the procedures. There seems to be a general consensus that the procedures are working well and should continue. It is not the purpose of the Bill to disrupt legislation and regulations that are working. I shall certainly inquire into the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point about representations and write to him.

Mr. Wallace: I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I do not accept the policy explanation provided by the Minister. Scots law and English law should he regarded as having equal status and there seems no earthly reason why English law should be allowed to prevail.

Dr. Godman: On the equality of status, does the European Court of Justice grant equality of status to the two legal systems?

Mr. Wallace: I have always assumed that it does. I see no reason to presume otherwise. 
The Minister's reply was disappointing. Perhaps he could have shown more imagination, but I am grateful to him for promising to let me know what consultation took place with the various professions in Scotland, particularly the dental profession, before the list was drawn up.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 551, in page 74, line 17, leave out 'and'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 552.

No. 483, in page 74, line 20, at end insert
'and the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998'.
Government amendments Nos. 553 and 554.

Mr. McLeish: Amendments Nos. 551 and 552 will insert an express reference to the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Bill into the reservation of employment rights and duties and industrial relations. This is intended to put beyond doubt the fact that the matters covered by the Bill, once it is enacted—in particular, the setting of the national minimum wage—will be reserved. I trust that the House will agree that this technical amendment is desirable.
Amendments Nos. 553 and 554 are technical amendments to the section of the employment head that deals with job search and support. We are concerned here with the interface between the activities of the Employment Service, which are reserved, and the activities of Scottish Ministers, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish local enterprise companies, which are to be devolved. As it stands, the provision does not deal with that interface in a satisfactory way.
Amendment No. 553 would alter the wording of the reservation to ensure that it catches all the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to the assistance to disabled persons to find or train for work under the Disabled Persons Employment Act 1944, and those under the Employment and Training Act 1973 in relation to assisting people generally to obtain and retain work, or to obtain employees. It goes on to except from the reservation those aspects of the 1973 Act that relate to training for employment, reflecting the fact that the Enterprise Network in Scotland has major responsibilities in that area. Amendment No. 554 simply deletes that part of the exception that is redundant because of amendment No. 553.
Although most training for employment in Scotland is carried out through the Enterprise Network, the activities of the Employment Service on training for employment in Scotland will also need to remain under the authority of the Secretary of State. I shall table an amendment to clause 52 on Report to provide that the powers under section 2 of the 1973 Act on training for employment can be exercised concurrently in Scotland by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. That is the right way in which to deal with that genuine problem of overlap.
6.30 pm
We are reviewing the provision further to establish whether any other adjustments are required to deal with other aspects of the work of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise that overlap with the work of the Employment Service. We shall table any further amendments on Report.
The amendments clarify which responsibilities of the Employment Service and the Enterprise Network in Scotland are devolved so that both bodies can continue to work effectively in Scotland after devolution. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Mrs. Laing: I shall speak to amendment No. 483, which would except from reservation the subject matter of what will become the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the power to determine whether there should be a minimum wage in Scotland and the level at which it should be set. I have listened to the Minister's arguments, but I do not understand why he opposes the amendment. Like many of the Conservative amendments, it would add clarity and consistency to the Bill.
It is consistent that the amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the power to decide issues that are particular to Scotland. Local wage rates are particular to

the part of the country that they affect, because economic circumstances vary throughout the country, as do the cost of living, house prices and the availability of jobs in certain industries. It should be possible to vary the minimum wage to take those factors into account.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Would the hon. Lady care to speculate on whether a minimum wage set by the Scottish Parliament would be higher or lower than that set by the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mrs. Laing: It is not for me to speculate. If the Government gave us any idea of the likely rate of the minimum wage, perhaps we could have such a discussion, although this would not be the place for it. If the Government continue to hide their intentions from Parliament and the people, we cannot discuss the issue further.
It would be consistent to give the Scottish Parliament power over minimum wage legislation for Scotland. The Government have already accepted that differential minimum wage rates may apply to the armed forces and those under 25. Why should they not apply in Scotland if the Scottish Parliament—elected by the Scottish people—wants that? It is not only inconsistent but blatantly unfair for the Government to say that the Scottish people can have higher taxes imposed on them than the rest of the country, but they cannot vary the rate of their minimum wage to take those higher taxes into account.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Lady has misunderstood the proposals on taxation in Scotland. The Scottish people would have to vote for higher taxes; they would not be imposed.

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman has not understood that, by voting yes, yes in the referendum last September, the Scottish people have already voted for higher taxes—perhaps not in principle, but in practice. It does not matter how much Labour Members disagree with that; it is true. Let us wait and see, and come back to the issue in a few years. There will be higher taxes in Scotland. The Conservatives do not want extra tartan taxes imposed. We also do not think that a minimum wage is necessary.

Mr. Russell Brown: Perhaps the hon. Lady should speak to other Conservative Members about the issue. We have been through the arguments. The national minimum wage will apply nationally, as the title says. It will be a national minimum wage for all—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mrs. Laing: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but if Scotland is a nation, it should have its own national minimum wage.

Mr. Swayne: Is my hon. Friend aware that negotiations have already taken place with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about a minimum wage?

Mrs. Laing: I am indeed. As usual, my hon. Friend pre-empts me. I was just coming to that. We do not want extra tartan taxes and we do not think that a minimum wage is necessary. However, tartan taxes are even more unfair if there is no tartan minimum wage to help pay for them.
There is no practical reason why the Scottish Parliament should not have power over the minimum wage, nor is there any reason in principle.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mrs. Laing: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am taking too much time. However, I should like to point out to him that, although I have always pronounced his constituency "Greenock", many of my friends from Kilmacolm, like my hon. Friends here, would say "Grinnock". I am sure that he understands that.
The principle of a minimum wage in Scotland has already been conceded. We must assume that the Government have a political reason for opposing our amendment. Labour Members are ever mindful of the wishes of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. They talk about a national minimum wage and a national this, that and the next thing for the UK, but the STUC is specifically Scottish. It is not surprising that Labour Members are always mindful of the wishes of the STUC, because many of them are sponsored by its unions. We all know that the STUC wants a higher level of minimum wage than that which the Government are likely to set. As hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) reminded me earlier, COSLA has already done a deal for a minimum wage of £4 an hour for local authority employees. The Government clearly want to keep responsibility for minimum wage legislation at Westminster because they do not trust the Scottish Parliament.
As we examine this Bill clause by clause, I begin to realise that some of our criticisms of the Government's inconsistency have been a little unjust. Even those who really believe in devolution must have realised that there is a warped logic and consistency in the apparently arbitrary choice of which matters are reserved and which are devolved. Responsibility for any controversial issues that could be embarrassing or cause internal strife in the Labour party—or worse, strife between the Labour party and its paymasters—will be kept at Westminster. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) finds that so funny. It is certainly true; why else are Labour Members opposing the amendment? It is clear that the Government are afraid to leave to an Edinburgh Parliament any decision that might give the Labour party political trouble. I do not call that the responsible action of a responsible Government.
The Government must be beginning to wonder why they introduced the Bill. They promised devolution before the election because they thought that it would win them votes from SNP supporters. Ironically, they did not even need the SNP's votes. The idea of Scottish home rule seemed good when it was pie in the sky, but now that the Government are forced to consider the detail of how it will work in practice, they are backing off at every turn. They are afraid to devolve sensitive issues to the Scottish Parliament because they do not trust the Scottish Parliament; they do not trust potential Members of the Scottish Parliament; they do not trust the Scottish people who will elect them. If the Government trust the Scots, they should accept the amendment and let the Scottish people and their elected representatives decide whether they want a minimum wage and at what level it should be set.

Mr. Browne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) on what I think was her maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, although it is a pity that it was the same as speeches her hon. Friends have already made. It certainly makes a change from blaming everything on the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), to hear them trotting out that Labour Members do not trust the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Liam Fox: That is to come.

Mr. Browne: Ah, that is to come.
I want to lay out some reasons why a national minimum wage ought not to be devolved. I speak in favour of the Government amendments and oppose amendment No. 483, and I have three reasons for doing so. First, amendment No. 483 is an attempt—and not too subtle at that—to introduce by the back door regional variations in the national minimum wage. The Tories lost that argument at every stage of debate on the National Minimum Wage Bill.
Incidentally, it was a welcome departure to hear a nationalist voice in the debate on the minimum wage. The absence of SNP Members from debates in which Labour Members and Liberal Democrats were delivering a national minimum wage was noted.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I trust that the hon. Gentleman is going on to explain that 50 per cent. of Labour representation were not present for the final vote in the all-night sitting on the National Minimum Wage Bill.

Mr. Browne: I was not intending to go into detail about who voted. I was merely pointing out the absence of a party that paints itself in a particular way to the electorate of Scotland. I have also noticed that its Members are absent except on the few occasions when they oppose what the Government are doing. Such occasions are so remarkably rare that one wonders why they are needed in Parliament at all.
I am opposed to regional variations in the national minimum wage because, after 18 years of Tory government, the level and intensity of low pay is the same across every United Kingdom region. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Epping Forest said, there is no difference across the UK in the level and intensity of poverty arising from low wages. The percentage of workers affected may vary slightly from one region to another, but not greatly. The 1997 labour force survey shows, for example, that 9 per cent. of workers in the south-east of England are paid less than £3.20 an hour. In the east midlands, the figure is 10 per cent., in Strathclyde it is also 10 per cent., and in the rest of Scotland it is 9 per cent.
The other measure of the level of intensity of low pay is the number of families receiving family credit. Figures published by the Department of Social Security in the family credit statistics quarterly inquiry of August 1997 support the view that workers' experiences of low pay are common throughout the UK. If there are variations, the evidence tends to suggest that they occur within and not between regions. For example, in my constituency, some workers in the town of Kilmarnock may earn slightly more doing the same jobs as workers from outlying


villages. Geographical boundaries are totally arbitrary as economic measures; low pay affects workers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in equal measure.

Mrs. Laing: Although the hon. Gentleman's statistics are interesting, does he accept that house prices, rents and travel costs vary throughout the country?

Mr. Browne: I accept that other economic measures may vary, but the level and intensity of low pay, which is what the national minimum wage is intended to attack, is the same throughout the country.
The second reason why I oppose regional variation of low pay or a Scottish national minimum wage is that a UK national minimum wage with a single rate is simple and uncomplicated, and workers will more easily identify with it and more easily recognise their legal right. Enforcement will therefore be more straightforward, administration will be less bureaucratic, and the same job with the same employer will not attract different rates in different parts of the UK.
The third reason why I oppose the Opposition's amendment—the real reason why it has been tabled—is that it is designed to delay the implementation of the national minimum wage in Scotland. The Government acted quickly to ensure the quick and effective implementation of the national minimum wage. Within 90 days of the election, the Low Pay Commission was set up to decide the right rate. It was instructed to take account of regional differences, and its members have journeyed across Britain to listen to evidence in order to ensure that that was so. They visited Scotland in October to take evidence. I hope that the commission will report soon and that we shall be able to get on with delivering the legislation.
The Opposition amendment asks the people of Scotland to wait for the national minimum wage. It would delay implementation until the Scottish Parliament was up and running, while workers in the rest of Britain would see an end to poverty pay. I know that people in my constituency are in need of a national minimum wage now, and I refuse to ask them to wait. I refuse to let my constituency and other areas of Scotland become the sweatshop of Britain until the Scottish Parliament is ready to legislate for a Scottish minimum wage. If hon. Members believe in the value of appropriate pay, they should support the national minimum wage and not seek either to ignore it, as the SNP did, or delay it, as the Tory Opposition choose to do by tabling this back-door measure.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I speak in support of amendment No. 483.
When we began discussing the principle of the Scotland Bill, the Secretary of State pointed out—indeed, he was commended for doing so—that the Government's approach would not be to devolve powers to Scotland but to give powers to it and merely reserve certain powers in Westminster. It was not a question of identifying the powers that should go; it was a question of identifying the powers that should remain. That was what distinguished the Bill from the previous attempt at a devolution Bill in the 1970s.
Although Conservatives oppose the principle of the Bill, we have attempted to table constructive amendments where there is intellectual inconsistency. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) laughs, but I seem to remember receiving some slight commendation from the leader of her party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), on the question of the relationship between the First Minister and the sovereign in a debate in which it was clear that Labour Members wholly misunderstood the principles of establishing separate sovereignty for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman is right, but what puzzles us is his party's Jekyll and Hyde attitude to the Bill. Half the Tory amendments are attempts to take things away from the Scottish Parliament, while the other half are attempts to add to its powers. The Tory party should come clean and tell us whether it is trying to enhance the powers of the Scottish Parliament or to diminish them—or does it vary from day to day, speaker to speaker and amendment to amendment?

Mr. Grieve: That can be easily answered. First, we have attempted—I accept that, in the process, we have used probing amendments—to draw the Minister and the Secretary of State out as to the rationale behind their decisions.

Mr. Ancram: Unsuccessfully.

Mr. Grieve: Yes, pretty unsuccessfully, most of the time, even when their approach has been irrational.
Secondly, we have genuinely tried to improve the Bill. The fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) may disagree with some of our improvements is neither here nor there: they were genuine attempts to make the Bill more workable.
The question about schedule 5 is: what is the rationale behind the reservations? The Government presented the national minimum wage to the House as a matter of social justice that would not impinge on economic policy. It is difficult to see why there should not be the opportunity to set a separate national minimum wage for Scotland. There is no economic rationale behind the Government's position. because the original legislation was not presented on such a basis; it was presented as a social matter.
Social policy is an area in which many matters are to be devolved, so the question is simple: what is the justification for retaining power over the national minimum wage here? The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) made several valid points on policy issues and preference, but when they are married up with the way in which the Bill has been presented and the purpose behind it, his arguments do not add up or make sense.
The Bill has been presented to the House as an issue of principle, and if the principle is to give the Scottish Parliament power over all such matters as need not essentially be reserved to the House of Commons, the national minimum wage does not meet that test.

Mr. McAllion: Is the hon. Gentleman not making a false distinction between social and economic issues? Does he not agree that we cannot have social justice unless we first have economic justice?

Mr. Grieve: That is an argument either for total independence or for having no devolution of any social legislation at all.
I do not wish to take up more of the time of the Committee, so I simply ask the Minister to justify the policy, because the Bill seems wholly illogical. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that the reserved areas are simply those matters over which the Government fear the Scottish Parliament and the embarrassment that it could cause. That is not a proper basis for devolution.

Mr. Dalyell: Parliamentary banter apart, this is a delicate situation. None the less, my right hon. and hon. Friends may have an easy ride—if the minimum wage is set at a level agreeable not only to the Scottish Trades Union Congress but to the individual trade unions.
My hon. Friend the Minister and I know that there are different views on the subject in the trade union movement. What will happen if the minimum wage is set rather lower than the expectations of many of the trade unions in Scotland? I ask a factual question: what has the STUC said to the Government on the subject? If I may personalise the question for a moment, what has Mr. Bill Spiers, in particular, said to the Government?

Mr. McAllion: That is unfair; he is trying to become the general secretary.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that that is an unfair question, but he will not deny that it is a highly relevant question.
Reference was made earlier to the tight disciplinary machinery on the Government side of the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and I were the only Labour Members present at the time, so the remark was not very apt. Those of us with different points of view are certainly entitled to ask what precisely has been said to Ministers on this delicate issue.
Furthermore, what have the local authorities said on the subject? Many councillors who are well known to the Minister and to others of my hon. Friends feel embarrassed about what they may be forced to do about employment levels. Leaving the banter aside, this is a deadly serious subject, and I ask for a factual explanation of what exactly the trade union movement—not only the STUC but its constituent trade unions—has said.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: There may be various arguments as to why, after devolution, powers over the minimum wage should be reserved, but we all know why the Opposition tabled the amendment.
I shall refute one of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)—an argument that has been used not only in this debate but in others both today and previously. He said that the change proposed would be too complex and difficult for people in Scotland—and presumably therefore for people in England, too—to understand. That is lowering the argument to a ridiculous extent. I feel sure that the people of Scotland, and those in the rest of the United Kingdom, can cope with such differences.
Indeed, there is an example in the Bill, which specifically exempts from the reservations under employment the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949. We are therefore to assume that agricultural workers in England and Scotland can happily cope with the idea of

different wage rates in different parts of the United Kingdom, whereas other workers cannot do the same with the minimum wage. That gives the lie to that argument against having differences between different parts of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) made a crack earlier about some of us having been absent for a vote on the national minimum wage. I think that I was one of the absentees, so may I explain that at about that time I was in Washington discussing the Northern Ireland peace process with certain Congressmen who are fervent supporters of Sinn Fein? I was trying to persuade them of the need to support the view of the British and Irish Governments on the peace process.
As for agricultural workers in Scotland, the national minimum wage would be the base rate upon which they would negotiate with their employers.
I shall explain why I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing); I acknowledge that she may not have had enough time to allow me to do so. I wanted to ask her whether, if we are fortunate enough in the next few weeks to debate the setting up of a Northern Ireland assembly—and God knows, we may not be so fortunate—she will argue for giving such an assembly the power to determine a national minimum wage for the six counties.
I also ask the Opposition whether they would want a Northern Ireland assembly to preside over its own social security system. Both the national minimum wage and the social security system should be uniform throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman must sit down for a moment, but I promise to give way to him later.
Such systems must be uniform throughout the whole of this multinational state. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, a uniform social security system is in the interests of those who, through no fault of their own, have to seek sustenance from the state. In the context of the national minimum wage, we must remember that there is migration from one nation to another within the so-called United Kingdom, and that those on low wages are often forced to migrate from one poorly paid job to another. The minimum wage must therefore be on a level.
To my hon. and very good Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I would also like to remind the hon. Member for Epping Forest of this—I say that, although there may be disagreements between the Government and the STUC and the TUC about the level of the minimum wage, the STUC and the TUC are at one in their determination that there should be a uniform national minimum wage throughout the United Kingdom. That is what my hon. Friend must remember.
I agree with the STUC on the level of the national minimum wage, and hence I disagree with my Front-Bench colleagues. The national minimum wage should be £4 an hour. I would like it to be £4.50 an hour, but that is being a little idealistic. If there are variations in the setting of a minimum wage, some employers will be unscrupulous enough to exploit those differences. They may set up satellites in the regions of England, Scotland or Wales and


pay lousy wages and impose lousy terms and conditions of employment on employees. In an age when the trade unions, sadly, are somewhat weak, we must give statutory protection across this multinational state.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the social security system in Northern Ireland, to which he referred, is administered separately?

7 pm

Dr. Godman: It is, but it is identical to the system established by the Department of Social Security here in England. There is no variation whatever in the range of social security payments. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to provide an example of any social welfare payment where there is a difference.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that regional wages in Scotland are set by employers—for example, Dumfries and Galloway has the lowest average wages?

Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but then he speaks with vast experience as an accomplished negotiator on behalf of the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, and as a one-time member, I believe, of the STUC. Some of the wages paid in the constituency of the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale are scandalously low—the lowest in Scotland. However, we all have lousy, unscrupulous employers in our constituencies.
Not long ago, an employer in the electronics industry in my constituency threatened his non-unionised work force with the sack if they had the temerity to speak to the local trades council or the local Member of Parliament about their lousy, rotten terms and conditions of employment. Where that employer and others like him are concerned, I look forward to the establishment of a national minimum wage and the enhancement of trade union recognition.
Rights were destroyed by that odd-job lot, the Conservative party, when it was in power. We need good, solid trade unions in our democracy, and we need a uniform social security system. We need also a uniform national minimum wage in our multinational state.

Mr. McAllion: There is something bizarre about the Conservative Opposition tabling an amendment which suggests that the national minimum wage should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, since they opposed both the minimum wage and the Scottish Parliament. That has to be put on record. Nobody has been convinced by any of the Opposition arguments.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) argued that the national minimum wage should vary across the country because housing costs and local taxes vary across the country. What she misunderstands is that the national minimum wage is not the recommended wage for all employers across the country—it is the absolute minimum wage for all employers across the country. With a strong and effective trade union movement, the problems she described can be dealt with by workers in any part of the country. The Tory party has never understood the working class, and I doubt if it ever will.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest argued that there was no practical or principled reason why the national minimum wage should not be varied in different parts of the country. I remind her that, in the early days of the labour movement, wages and conditions for miners—my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), a former miner, can confirm this—used to be set from pit to pit. It was the work of the NUM which helped to impose a national minimum wage and working conditions for miners. That is why the Labour Government, like the miners, will deliver a minimum wage for the working people of this country.

Mr. McLeish: I welcome the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) to the Front Bench. Whether it is a fleeting visit will be decided by the powers that be on the Opposition Front Bench.
To be harsh for a moment, the behaviour of the official Opposition is, quite frankly, irresponsible. The Conservative Opposition are playing politics with one of the most important manifesto commitments we have made—to improve the social and economic well-being of millions of workers in this country. It makes no sense for the Conservative Opposition to pick and choose the points on which they want to be politically expedient. We saw this last night in terms of guns; we have seen it today in terms of welfare, and now the minimum wage. It is clear that the national minimum wage should be just that—a single national minimum wage. That is essential to maintain the level playing field for business in the UK—one of our key objectives in framing the Bill.
A single national minimum wage applying across the UK will ensure clarity, simplicity and ease of enforcement. It makes no difference where one lives or works in the UK—low pay is low pay. Putting a floor under pay to avoid unacceptably low levels is what the national minimum wage is about. That has not been recognised by the Conservative Opposition. I would like the hon. Member for Epping Forest to identify where her suggestion has come from. What discussions has she had with the trade unions or the business community?
A decision has been taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends in government to promote a national minimum wage. That is an important priority, which is not helped by the Conservatives attempting to reduce the matter to a political knockabout at the expense of the provisions of the Bill. It is for this reason that the Bill reserves, among other things, employment rights and duties, and industrial relations.
We are seeking a coherent set of policies which are consistent in economic terms throughout the country. Given the claims by the Opposition that they want to protect business interests in Scotland, I hope that they recognise that this is best achieved by the subject matter of the National Minimum Wage Bill being a reserved matter. [Interruption.] Once again, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) makes flippant remarks from a sedentary position on a serious issue.

Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is doing the honourable thing by coming to the Dispatch Box instead of mumbling from the Front Bench, as he normally does.

Mr. Ancram: I just hope that, on this occasion, the Minister might answer the question put to him by the


hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the representations the Minister has received from the STUC, and, in particular, from Bill Spiers.

Mr. McLeish: If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) talking about much wider issues in relation to the trade union movement in Scotland. My hon. Friend acknowledges that this is an important issue, but the substance of the minimum wage is not a matter for debate this evening. We are talking about where the legislative competence will lie in relation to the minimum wage's legislation, level and implementation.
We take this matter seriously. If there is a vote, I ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Opposition amendment. Millions of workers are looking for leadership. They will get none from the Conservatives, but they will get it from the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 552, in page 74, line 18, at end insert
'and
() the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.'.

No. 553, in page 74, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert—
'The subject-matter of—
() the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, and
() the Employment and Training Act 1973, except so far as relating to training for employment'.

No. 554, in page 74, leave out lines 38 and 39.—[Mr. McFall.]

Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 75, leave out lines 2 to 4.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 75, leave out lines 5 to 7.
No. 6, in page 75, leave out lines 8 to 13.

Dr. Fox: In any Bill dealing with devolved and reserved powers there will be accusations of inconsistency and situations in which the general case could be made either way. However, the example before us is one of cynical manipulation, not of inconsistency. Abortion is a sensitive subject, but it is hardly a nationalist totem. The debate is not about abortion policy itself, but is about who should have legislative responsibility.
We cannot determine, should there be devolution to the Scottish Parliament, whether there will be a tightening or loosening of policy. That is not really the point. Hon. Members will have their personal views on the subject. I make no secret of my view: I would very much wish to see a substantial tightening of abortion policy, but that is not the point at issue. We are discussing who should have legislative responsibility.
In the run-up to the debate, it was clear and interesting that the amendment had attracted a wide range of political support, not least of which was a statement made today,

which I am sure hon. Members will have received, from the Catholic bishops of Scotland, who say:
It is with some concern that we note the reservation of certain powers to the Westminster Parliament, which, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, could be decided here in Scotland. Representatives from all the main political parties have pointed to the anomaly which transfers criminal justice and health legislation from London to Edinburgh, yet excludes abortion from the competence of the new Parliament.
This position is rendered even less comprehensible when it is noted that the new Scottish Parliament will have powers to legislate on such issues as euthanasia and capital punishment. We express our support for the parliamentarians on all sides of the House of Commons who have brought forward amendments to the Scotland Bill to allow our new Parliament full and proper control over an issue which Scots have a right to decide for themselves.
To those who talk of a cross-border 'traffic' in abortion, let it be noted that such 'traffic' already exists throughout Europe wherever neighbouring countries have different laws in any area, be it taxation, health or marriage.
That view has come from other political parties. I note the support of the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists. The Liberal Democrats tabled amendments similar to those that are before the Committee.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talked about "traffic" throughout Europe. I hope that he will confirm that we have that traffic now within the United Kingdom, between Northern Ireland and England, Scotland and Wales.

Dr. Fox: I shall refer to Northern Ireland, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a few moments.
It is worth considering precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, because it has been raised recently, by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and in an exchange during Prime Minister's questions. On 29 January, the Under-Secretary said in response to a question:
As I have said, we have no agenda to extend the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland.
The Committee will understand that the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Minister continued:
If there is to be change, the preferable way for it to happen is in a devolved administration in Northern Ireland or, alternatively, by way of a private Member's Bill from a Northern Ireland Member."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Grand Committee, 29 January 1998; c. 2.]
As the Committee will probably be aware, I took the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a question about these matters during Prime Minister's Question Time three weeks ago. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why there was a difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland on this issue, and why Northern Ireland should have power to make changes—the preferable way would be through a devolved assembly—but not Scotland. Why is the situation so different? The Prime Minister replied:
Scotland and Northern Ireland need not necessarily be treated in the same way across the various programmes for devolution. One of the points of devolution is that what happens in Northern Ireland or in Scotland is a matter of debate and can be decided in different ways."—[Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1056.]
The Prime Minister would do well to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the Government's position actually is before he is so rash as to answer a genuine question at Prime Minister's Question Time. However,


the Government have an explanation of why we are treated to such an interpretation. The notes on clauses tell us that certain areas raise "major ethical issues" or
require expertise to be pooled
on a United Kingdom basis before regulations can be made where there should be reservation.
Let us consider those two reasons. The first rests on "major ethical issues". Such issues are not to be determined by the Scottish Parliament, according to the notes on clauses, when it comes to this part of the Bill. That is presumably because the Scottish Parliament is incapable of deciding on major ethical issues, if we are to believe what we read. Yet the death penalty—a major ethical issue—can be decided in the Scottish Parliament. Euthanasia is another major ethical issue. It, too, can be decided in the Scottish Parliament. Bizarrely, human transplantation can also be decided in the Scottish Parliament but not xenotransplantation, which is transplantation from animals to humans.
7.15 pm
I do not know where the line is being drawn. What is a major ethical issue to the Government and what is not? I look forward to the Secretary of State defining exactly what the Government regard as a major ethical issue.
The second part of the Government's explanation is matters
which require expertise to be pooled at a United Kingdom level
before we can make regulations. That seems to be nonsensical. There is no direct link between expertise and regulation. Regulation is how politicians respond to a perceived problem, albeit in the light of access to relevant expertise. The Scottish Parliament could have full access to United Kingdom expertise on any of the issues that we are considering, simply by calling the appropriate witnesses to it. It may well make the same regulations on the same advice, but it may not. To pretend that there is inextricable linkage is to make it nonsensical to have politicians. Why not elevate scientists to the status of gods and do exactly what they tell us?
The reservation has the stamp of the Prime Minister upon it. The Prime Minister, having had one or two nasty brushes that his spin doctors had difficulty dealing with on the abortion issue, does not want the issue to be in the hands of the part of the party where he has least control. Anyone who witnessed the Scottish Labour party conference will understand what that means. The Prime Minister does not want troublemakers for him on this issue. That is the only reason why power is being reserved. The reservation smacks not of principle but of political manipulation, cynicism and cowardice.

Mr. Roy: I shall speak against the amendment. I have a deep belief in the sanctity of life and therefore believe passionately in the right of life of the unborn child. That belief applies to the unborn child throughout the United Kingdom and not only in the towns and cities of Scotland.
Abortion and its human consequences are not just matters of health to me and to the many whom I represent. Abortion is an ethical issue that is above the clinical terms that are used to end the life of any unborn child. It is an ethical issue that should be above political point scoring. My constituents know and understand my pro-life stance.
In all conscience, I cannot support an amendment that pigeon-holes abortion and the right to life as purely health matters. Similarly, I cannot support an amendment that could lead to cross-border traffic in human sadness. The thought of seriously troubled women—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should not enter into loud conversations in the Chamber. Indeed, there should be no conversations when an hon. Member is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
The thought of seriously troubled women booking into hotels, whether in Scotland or England, before an early-morning appointment at a termination clinic appals me. A more liberated pro-abortion area, whether it be in England or Scotland, would result in pitiful cross-border traffic of women who were desperately unhappy and desperately troubled.
I ask Opposition Members not to treat abortion and its sad consequences as a political football. I ask them also to think and to separate out the tragic consequences of someone deeply troubled thinking about terminating the life of an unborn child. Let us deal with the problem of unwanted pregnancies as a real, human problem, one that is beyond the realms of a Scottish-English border. Women throughout the United Kingdom should be treated equally in a sympathetic manner.
I ask hon. Members to reject this sad amendment.

Mr. Wallace: I should like to make it clear to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) that I do not consider this a trivial issue or in any way a political football. It is a serious issue that the Committee should address. In no way would I trivialise the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Although I would not sign up to the pro-life camp, I believe that abortion should be very limited indeed in its extent, but this is not a debate on the merits or demerits of abortion. The question is whether the Scottish Parliament should deal with these serious and important issues father than the Westminster Parliament.

Dr. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) that this is a serious issue, and I regret the presentation made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the Conservative party spokesman. In his speech, he made this a party political matter.

Mr. Wallace: It is for people to argue their case as they see fit. I hope that in my remarks I shall not make it a partisan matter, as I know that strong views are held across the Chamber.
Why is abortion a reserved matter? The health issue has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I accept that this is not purely a health issue. The Abortion Act 1967 was to address matters with regard to criminal law, and criminal law is substantially a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. If the two areas that relate to abortion—health and criminal law—are devolved, logic would suggest that the law of abortion should not be a reserved matter.
What is the justification for abortion being a reserved matter? It cannot be because it is a moral or ethical issue, because the Scottish Parliament must be capable of


grappling with moral and ethical issues as well as with social, economic, transport, health and education issues. We are in free vote territory, and people would expect that in the Scottish Parliament there would be free votes on matters of conscience, as happens in the House. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, euthanasia and capital punishment will be matters for the Scottish Parliament. They are treated seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and are ethical issues.
Surely the Government are not saying that the Scottish Parliament will not be competent to deal with an issue such as this. The theme that we ran during the referendum campaign, which the Government have mentioned when replying to debates in Committee, was, "Surely we can trust the Scottish Parliament." Indeed we can, and we can trust the parliamentarians who will be returned, and the people of Scotland who will return them. We can trust them to treat these issues with the seriousness that they deserve and to come to the right judgment based on a range of factors, one of which must be cross-border traffic. It is an important issue, and it would be for the Scottish Parliament to take it into account before it made any change—if it was ever minded to do so—to the current abortion law.

Mr. McAllion: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that cross-border traffic already exists? There are cities in England, such as Liverpool, where it is difficult to get an abortion. People from Liverpool can come to Dundee for an abortion. Indeed, many people from Glasgow can come to Dundee to seek an abortion, and they book into hotels in the way described by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). The cross-border traffic argument has nothing to do with whether the Scottish Parliament should have responsibility for this area.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman raises a practical point. I am trying to anticipate what the arguments might be for not allowing abortion to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. Those who argue for abortion to be reserved have said that there might be the problem of cross-border traffic.
What about Northern Ireland? The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw talked about the whole of the United Kingdom, but Northern Ireland has a different abortion law from the rest of the United Kingdom. The 1967 Act did not apply in Northern Ireland because abortion was devolved to the Stormont Parliament. Back in the 1920s, it was thought fit by those who framed the legislation to give the Stormont Parliament powers, so that abortion could be properly devolved to the Northern Ireland Parliament. We argue that a similar arrangement should be made for the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s.
It is important to underline the fact that for a long time, the law on abortion has differed between Scotland and England. The notes on clauses say:
The 1967 Act introduces in effect a similar regime for the whole of Great Britain.
I do not accept that that is necessarily the case.
I am grateful for the insight of Sandy McCall Smith in his contributions in the "Encyclopaedia of Laws of Scotland", and of Kenneth Norrie, who was a lecturer in law at the university of Aberdeen. Kenneth Norrie wrote

an article in the Criminal Law Review in 1985, headed "Abortion in Great Britain: One "Act, Two Laws". Before 1967, under Scots criminal law, based on common law, it was a crime to carry out an improper act calculated to destroy the foetus. It was clear from practice that the need to terminate a pregnancy in the interest of maternal health was not considered a criminal act under the law of Scotland. Admittedly, the law was not terribly clear. What was clear was that there were no Crown prosecutions when those terminations occurred. A study carried out in 1963—four years before the Act that was taken through the House by Lord Steel of Aikwood, as he is now—showed that 2 per cent. of women in a Scottish city had abortions performed under the health service.
The 1967 Act did not interfere with the common law, and merely set out circumstances in which an abortion could lawfully be carried out. That meant that there were still differences between Scotland and England. It was still legally possible in Scotland, under common law, for a single medical opinion to permit an abortion to go ahead.
Until the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 tidied up many of those things and gave clear dates beyond which abortions could not take place, the position in Scotland was different from England. In England and Wales, the relevant provisions of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which was specifically continued by the Abortion Act 1967, made it a crime to abort a foetus that was capable of being born alive. Although it was never judicially determined in any firm way, the presumption was 28 weeks in England and Wales. However, in Scotland, where the 1929 Act did not apply, and had never applied, abortions could be legally carried out up to full term. Therefore, there have been quite significant anomalies between Scots law and English law for many years.

Mr. Dalyell: Was the study to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred the Aberdeen study?

Mr. Wallace: The information that I have, which comes from the "Encyclopaedia of Laws of Scotland" does not state which city, but from subsequent reports I am almost certain that it would have been the Aberdeen study.

Mr. Dalyell: This is a matter of some consequence, because I was the parliamentary private secretary at the time to the Secretary of State for Social Services. The problem was very much to do with Professor Baird. The study was atypical not only of other Scottish cities but of the UK as a whole. What is the hon. and learned Gentleman trying to deduce from it?

Mr. Wallace: The point that I was trying to make was that, before the 1967 Act, the law in Scotland was materially different from that in England, to the extent that in one Scottish city a significant number of women—I think it was 2 per cent.—had abortions under the health service. Although abortions should never have happened in those circumstances in England, the law of Scotland allowed them to be carried out.
The point that I am making is that the laws of Scotland and England have not always been parallel on this issue, and the Scottish Parliament might decide in future that it wants to do something different, perhaps reflecting the


views of our constituents in Scotland—it may be different on a particular issue and especially on an ethical issue, because the laws have different characteristics.
Finally, the law in England is uncertain whether post-coital contraception is legal, but it is clear in Scotland, where the law requires proof of pregnancy, that it is not an illegal act. Therefore, even in a continuing matter of some legal debate, the law in Scotland is clear while in England it is not.
The Government must explain why abortion should be a reserved matter. So far, we have had no explanation either in general debate or in the notes on clauses. The argument is not made out and I hope that the Government will be prepared to change their mind on it. If they do so, I am sure that the people of Scotland and those who represent them in the Scottish Parliament will treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves, but come to their own decision after careful consideration of all the factors.

Mrs. Fyfe: It will be no secret to most hon. Members that I view this subject from the perspective of the need to defend choice. I am glad that hon. Members take the issues seriously. So far, those who have spoken can never be in the position of a woman faced with a pregnancy that she does not want and regards as a disaster. However, whether or not we have been in such a position, we can try to use our imagination to realise the difficulties that such a woman might confront if she happens to live in one part or another of the United Kingdom where an abortion is difficult to obtain. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is right that even within Scotland a woman can be forced to travel from her home town to somewhere with more liberal attitudes.
I would fight to the end to prevent anyone from having an abortion against her will, as happens in some parts of the world, but I would also defend to the end a woman's right to have an abortion and to have it as easily in one part of the United Kingdom as another. We do not want to make it more difficult by having different rules in one part of the United Kingdom. We should be working towards a universal system whereby a woman can have an abortion with the least difficulty, wherever she happens to live.
Reference has been made to Northern Ireland. I wonder whether any hon. Member is defending what happens in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to know how many hundreds of thousands of women are forced to make the journey to mainland Britain, concealing the fact that they are pregnant because of difficulties with their families, communities and jobs. The woman may have to make excuses for being away, and she will be alone, friendless and frightened in the alien environment of a clinic. Is that what hon. Members wish to defend?

Dr. Fox: The hon. Lady asks who would defend the status quo in Northern Ireland. The answer to that is that the Government, whom she supports, defend that position. They have no plans to change that. As I said, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the

appropriate place for such a change to be made would be in a devolved assembly. Why the difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Mrs. Fyfe: I am coming to the point about Northern Ireland.
The law should be uniform. I understand that Northern Ireland is coming from a position where there is no right to abortion. That is not because all Northern Ireland agrees that there should be no such right. Women who have to travel to mainland Britain think that they should have the right to obtain an abortion on their doorstep without the trauma of going to Liverpool or somewhere else in Britain.

Ms Sandra Osborne: My hon. Friend might appreciate some useful information in relation to the number of women from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland who have abortions in England. In 1996, 1,573 women from Northern Ireland and 4,894 from the Republic of Ireland had such abortions.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. I think that she will agree that that must be the minimum—

Dr. Godman: A conservative figure.

Mrs. Fyfe: A conservative estimate. Such women had to face extra difficulties when they were already in a position that none of us would want to face.
It is not the case that all people in Northern Ireland do not want the right to abortion, but it is the case that all political leaders in Northern Ireland do not want it. They have that in common if nothing else.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: And they are all men.

Mrs. Fyfe: And they are all men. It has been years since there was a woman Member of Parliament for any part of Northern Ireland. Fortunately, the voice of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition is being heard these days. I look forward to a more genuine opening up of the debate in Northern Ireland on the issue. Attitudes in the Republic have liberalised immensely in recent years. People have begun to realise that if a member of a particular Church or religious persuasion thinks that abortion is wrong, they are free never to have one, but they do not have the right to impose their views on people who disagree with them.
I do not know what reasons Ministers will give for abortion being a reserved power. If they say that there should not be cross-border traffic, I most certainly agree. The House has debated the subject in the past, and it has agreed with a woman's right to choice. Hon. Members have defended a woman's right to choose, and I hope that tonight the Committee will not start to wreck that, by agreeing with the nonsense proposed by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).

Mr. John Hayes: If the hon. Lady is so confident of her, in my view, rather unpalatable anti-life views, why is she not prepared to argue with those in Scotland in the devolved Scottish Parliament, which can then make a decision? It might well


be that if that power were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, it would take a more liberal view. Why is she not confident that she can win the argument in Scotland with a devolved Scottish Parliament?

Mrs. Fyfe: Those who defend choice are talking about some kind of quality of life. They recognise that women face real difficulties, which Conservative Members ignore in this debate. They treat the matter as a political football, simply to gain brownie points in some quarters. That is what this is all about. The sooner they stop wasting time on things that they are not serious about and get back to real issues, the better.

Mr. Salmond: I do not doubt for a second the sincerity of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on this matter, but she is wrong to argue the case in terms of her position on abortion one way or the other. We have heard two speeches from Labour Members from diametrically opposed positions on the moral question of abortion and two speeches thus far from Opposition Members, and I assume that among Opposition Members, too, there are diametrically opposed views on the matter.
The hon. Member for Maryhill makes the strong point that the issue is best considered by women, and the chances are that in a Scottish Parliament, whatever else we may say about it, there will be substantially more women than there are here, despite the improvement. If that is the issue, I do not think that the hon. Lady's argument falls.

Mr. Ernie Ross: That is not because of anything that the Opposition parties did to ensure selection of candidates.

Mr. Salmond: I shall not respond to the hon. Gentleman. He is completely incapable of looking at any argument and coming to a serious conclusion. On this issue, above all, we should try to argue as a matter of principle and find a way through.
There is no uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. The reason is well known: it was considered injudicious not to have abortion legislation devolved to Northern Ireland because, at various times, it was thought that the position in Northern Ireland, across its political representation, was different from that on the mainland of Great Britain. If that was the case, that devolution took place with the expectation that a different position might have arisen in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
In the case of the Scottish Parliament, it is impossible for any hon. Member to anticipate what the Scottish Parliament would do on the matter of abortion. There is nothing in the voting record of Scottish Members in this House on these matters, certainly during the past 20 years, that could lead hon. Members, whether it be the hon. Member for Maryhill or the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), to believe that the law would be liberalised or tightened.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is absolutely correct: there has been no consistent abortion legislation within Great Britain. The relevant primary legislation in the 1920s was substantially different, as were the administration and interpretation of those Acts.

Ms Osborne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1967 Act is of major significance today in respect of

the availability of abortions, and that any different legislation, whether in Scotland or in England, would inevitably lead to cross-border traffic, which would be greatly detrimental to the women concerned? This issue should be discussed on the basis not of personal pro or anti-abortion views but of how it will affect women.

Mr. Salmond: I agree that that is the best way to approach it. However, if the hon. Lady reads the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland, she will see that that point was substantially dealt with. Even after the 1967 Act, the legislation was administered differently north and south of the border, and in various areas in Scotland and south of the border, because of the legal basis.

Mr. Frank Doran: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: No, I wish to be brief. I would normally give way to the hon. Gentleman, but other hon. Members want to speak and time is severely limited. I do not wish to crowd anyone out of the debate.
I agree with one point made by the Government: I regret that this matter has not come forward as a cross-party amendment. The conduct of this debate would have been far better had the amendment been sponsored by hon. Members from every political party, because I am sure that they share the point of view expressed in the amendment. I made it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland that I would support the Liberal Democrat amendment that was tabled at an early stage on this matter.
I support absolutely the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland. However, I wish to add one further point that has not been mentioned, as some of the newer Members of the House might care to think about this. During the 11 years in which I have been a Member of the House, abortion has been raised as a serious debating issue three times. I am open to correction on that, but I remember them pretty well. The first time was through a private Member's Bill, which was knocked out not because the argument was lost but because of lack of time. The second time, the issue was allocated sufficient time, but in the late 1980s there was such a mass of confusion on the amendments that, even after a decision had been made, most hon. Members were not aware what it was or how it would be interpreted. The third time, the issue was latched on to another piece of legislation—no doubt on a similar ethical subject—and was not even treated as an issue in its own right.
Whatever the moral arguments and the efforts that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber put into these debates in trying to settle the position with their consciences, the issue would be treated in a better fashion by the Scottish Parliament than it has been in the past 11 years by the House. It is a question not of whether people were satisfied with the outcome but of whether people were satisfied that their position had been exercised in a debate that matched the importance of the issue. Whatever else we may say, none of us can put our hand on our heart and say that the House has dealt properly with one of the supreme moral and social issues of our time.
I believe that a Scottish Parliament could deal with this matter better. I am not convinced that the legislation would be substantially changed. I am certain that, among other factors, a Scottish Parliament would bear in mind the experience of the legislation in England and Wales—it would be sensible and important to do so—but I am convinced that the Scottish Parliament is entitled to express what it believes is the conscience and view of the Scottish people on this supremely important topic.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Part of this debate has shown the House of Commons at its best—it has been tackling a difficult issue in a responsible and almost non-partisan way. That is why the breathtaking cynicism with which the Conservative party has proposed the amendment has been made even worse. Its motivation is clearly an attempt to stir up religious feeling for party advantage.

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davidson: Let me finish my case, and then the hon. Lady can respond.
I took the bother to check what the Glasgow Herald said when this subject was first raised. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) must have been quite pleased with the heading of the article: "Tories put abortion on the agenda—Fox bids to exploit religious divisions". The caption under the picture was
Liam Fox: attempt to embarrass Labour".
We all know the different agendas that are operating here. It is a question of what one says and how one tries to spin it. Although ostensibly it was a real issue about devolving power, in the mischievous way in which the Tories have operated on several occasions throughout the Bill's passage, it was simply an attempt to stir up religious feeling. How do I know that? The Herald's reporter had obviously had the benefit of an off-the-record briefing—some of it was clearly on the record—from the former Minister. The Herald said:
The Tories yesterday played the religion card in the devolution debate, when they unexpectedly called for abortion law to be handed down to the Scottish Parliament. The move was justified in terms of logic, but behind the scenes it was being openly admitted that this was an issue in the debate which could potentially embarrass those in the Labour Party, particularly in the West of Scotland, who are Catholic … Speaking after he dropped his bombshell Dr. Fox said: 'The reason that the Labour Party are having this as a reserved power is that it causes them internal division. It has nothing to do with the principle of devolution, but all to do with internal party convenience. We will put down an amendment and then we will see what the Government does with its majority."'
The article goes on:
Dr. Fox's comments show that they believe that Labour, particularly in West Central Scotland, could be placed in a quandary if issues such as abortion are brought to the forefront of the debate.

Many decent people who take different views on that matter deserve better, from a party that was the Government and that claims to be the leading Opposition party in Scotland and elsewhere in this country, than crude manipulation of strong religious feelings.

Dr. Fox: rose—

Mr. Davidson: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can withdraw those remarks.

Dr. Fox: I absolutely refute the allegation that we are attempting to stir up religious feelings. We have raised this issue in a non-partisan way. I made my view on abortion—I said that I wanted the law tightened up—clear at the outset, lest I be accused of personal interest in this matter. I am appalled at how the hon. Gentleman has dragged the level of the debate down and at the fact that he has based his argument on the spin that the Glasgow Herald put on the matter. Although I do not withdraw a word of what was —quoted, I utterly reject the spin that the hon. Gentleman and the Herald put on it.

Mr. Davidson: The Herald reporter said:
The move was justified in terms of logic, but behind the scenes it was being openly admitted that this was an issue in the debate which could potentially embarrass those in the Labour Party, particularly in the West of Scotland, who are Catholic.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes the matter to the Press Council so that it can pursue it with the Herald, because I have seen no retraction sought from or given by the Glasgow Herald. We are left with the strong feeling that this is a deliberate attempt to pander to the worst feelings that the Conservatives can find in the west of Scotland.
I am happy to say that I believe that my party will not be divided on this matter. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Far too many hon. Members are speaking. The only person who should be speaking is the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the Committee.

Mr. Davidson: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
I understand why the Conservative party wants to shout me down—I have revealed the dishonesty of its approach to this matter, which goes beyond the manipulation that we have seen on other issues. That is part of the backwards and forwards of politics, but the crude attempt to manipulate religious feeling deserves to be flushed into the open and condemned.
The Labour party is strongly behind what the Government are doing and will unanimously support them. We shall not be drawn into pandering to the worst in politics, which we have seen from the Conservatives.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and hope that he agrees that Conservative Members are not being cynical about this sensitive and emotional issue. I agree with every word of the hon. Member for Glasgow,


Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who spoke well and sensitively. We are discussing not the ethical side of abortion, but whether Labour Members—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have a speech; this is an intervention. The hon. Lady has taken long enough.

Mr. Davidson: I understand that the accusation will arouse strong feelings among those who were not party to the plot, but I remind hon. Members that
behind the scenes it was being openly admitted that this was an issue".
The briefing clearly took place; the headline "Fox bids to exploit religious divisions" shows that there was clear and cynical manipulation, which should be condemned.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The issue involves a matter of principle. We should not allow the exchanges that have just taken place to deflect us from serious consideration of whether a Scottish Parliament established by this House of Commons should have legislative competence to deal with a matter of such sensitivity, which raises ethical, religious and health issues.
I have been a Member of Parliament since 1987, and the ethical element of abortion has given me more difficulty than any issue that has been put before me by my constituents, with the possible exception of capital punishment. The approaches of Members of Parliament to those two issues have much in common, because they involve significant issues of belief rather than political policy. If the Scottish Parliament is competent to determine whether capital punishment, which involves important ethical, religious and legal complications, may be available, what distinction in principle denies it the same legislative competence over abortion?
Hon. Members who talked about the problem of cross-border traffic should consider that a murder committed on one side of the River Tweed might result in the death by hanging of the person convicted of it if the Scottish Parliament decided that there should be capital punishment for the crime of murder, whereas a murder committed on the other side of the Tweed might not have the same result. There is always such conflict when two legal jurisdictions share a border.
If the Scottish Parliament is competent to deal with capital punishment, why is it thought to be incompetent to deal with abortion? The law in Scotland was different from the law of England for a long time, although I think that it is closer to it now. Mr. Alex Bourne, a well-known London gynaecologist, was prosecuted in 1938, but no similar prosecutions took place in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, cities such as Aberdeen had almost a tradition, if that description does not demean the subject, of performing therapeutic abortions, but hon. Members will have difficulty finding regular instances of prosecution in Scotland over allegations that the crime of abortion had been committed.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), whose views I respect and, indeed, share substantially, made the Northern Ireland case, but her remarks were an argument not for denying a Scottish Parliament legislative competence, but for changing the law in Northern Ireland.
I shall campaign with her as long and as hard as she likes to change the law in Northern Ireland, because it should be changed.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: No. I want to conclude my remarks, because the Minister has yet to reply.
The Scottish Parliament is perhaps better equipped to deal with such matters than this House. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said that we have dealt with abortion three times in the past 10 years—by no means satisfactorily. No hon. Member left the debates satisfied that the issue had been properly determined.
I understand that there is already a substantial body of opinion that the Scottish Parliament should take evidence before legislating. If ever an issue cried out for evidence to be taken before legislation is considered, it is surely an issue of such complication.
Not only should abortion be part of the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament as a matter of principle, but the proposed workings of the Scottish Parliament make it much more likely that there would be an outcome more satisfactory than any in this House since I was elected in 1987.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Many hon. Members have different views from each other, and it is important to state that this is not a party matter. I should like to put on record my strong views against the taking of life in any form. I lobbied the House during the passage of the Abortion Bill, but I respect the views of others as I expect others to respect mine. I would not condemn any woman who had been forced to seek an abortion, and I applaud the work of those who support women who choose to have their child and who require such support. I should like the debate in the House of Commons on this issue to take place at such a level.
The debate is not about a change in the law. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, such a debate should be informed, and should not take place in the sort of atmosphere that has been created in the Committee tonight. I should like to take the debate back to the issue of where decisions should be made, which is appropriate; it should not be turned into a party matter or involve abortion law. We must get back on track.
Without commenting on whether abortion law in Scotland would be more rigid or more relaxed, it is important for me to state that I am deeply concerned that there would be cross-border traffic between Scotland and England, which I never want to happen and would certainly abhor. There is cross-border traffic in other parts of Europe and in other parts of this country, but that is no reason to introduce such bad practice into the difference between England and Scotland.
The way in which the debate has been conducted has demeaned the House. The issue should be debated not during a discussion about the Scottish Parliament, but in a proper and informed manner. I regret very much that the amendment was tabled.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I have appreciated for many years the fact that


abortion is a major ethical problem for the individual consciences of Members of this House or of any other legislature that may be asked to consider it. If anyone doubted that—I think that few could—the strength of feeling that has been evident during the past hour or so would certainly remind us that there is no doubt about the importance of the issue.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and a number of other hon. Members that no assumption should be made about what outcome a shift in jurisdiction to a Scottish Parliament might produce—it is impossible to read. I debate with the hon. Gentleman often, and on this occasion I agree with him. The differences might not be dramatic, but none of us knows that, and we must conduct the debate on the assumption that differences may emerge, perhaps not at one moment, but over time. There could be a divergence, and, in the special circumstances of this issue and this question, we must consider whether that is, on the whole, to be desired, or whether it would produce problems.
We are considering legislative responsibility and where it should lie, not our personal views on abortion. I am one of the few hon. Members in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is another—who can remember proceedings on the 1967 legislation. At the time, I was Member of Parliament for South Aberdeen. Even in Scotland, there are differences: as Member of Parliament for South Aberdeen I perhaps had an easier billet during the passage of the 1967 Act than Members of Parliament for other parts of Scotland. I appreciated the difficulties and the differences.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is right to say that there were differences on various points in the common law and in the criminal law that lie alongside the statute. One of his closest political associates and friends was the promoter of the 1967 legislation. A decision was taken by the promoter, and ultimately by the House of Commons, that it was right to have a common statutory framework within which to consider the possibility of a termination. The time scales and the circumstances and conditions that had to be met before a termination could be carried out were put on a United Kingdom basis. That was a considered judgment. It does not mean that we cannot change the position now if we want, but the arguments that were put in 1967 had some force.
8 pm
I make that point without any feeling of crushing certainty. No one has bothered to refer to it, but at one stage in my parliamentary career 20 years ago I argued this case from another point of view. I realise that this is a matter of judgment and that we must consider the balance of the argument. The Government have come to the view that the decision taken in 1967 was right. The fact that, even now, there are differences in social approach and medical practice in different parts of the county is not a justification for having different criteria and different tests within the legislative framework.
The 1996 statistics showed that in England 28 per cent. of terminations were in the private sector and purchased, whereas in Scotland the figure was 1 per cent. I strongly defend and welcome that difference between Scotland and

England. The views and work of Professor Baird in Aberdeen in the 1950s and 1960s have also been mentioned.
We should not easily countenance the prospect of different medical and social tests and a different statutory framework. On balance, I have concluded that it would be better to have one statutory framework. The Bill is based on a division of responsibility. Hon. Members have proposed amendments and have argued that there should be a change of mind on an individual matter. People are entitled to do that again on the abortion issue. We consider each case on its merits, and I take the view that on this matter it is better to have a national framework and a common approach.
It is perfectly proper for hon. Members to say, "What about Northern Ireland?" I do not want to plunge into the sad history of events in Northern Ireland, but it is clear that we have made a distinction between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom for a multiplicity of pressing political and other reasons. There is no case for saying that, because Northern Ireland is different, we should countenance the possibility of differences between the law on abortion in England and Scotland.
I rely on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne). There is considerable traffic out of the Irish Republic and out of Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1995, 1,548 came from Northern Ireland and 4,531 from the Irish Republic. That shows a steady pattern, and not a sudden variation at this later stage. We must consider the possibility of a significant variation in the law on abortion when making a judgment about where the jurisdiction should lie, because there would be a danger of significant cross-border traffic, which would not be sensible or satisfying.

Dr. Fox: That is the root of the problem. Why does the Secretary of State find it unacceptable to have a variation in the criteria for abortion within Great Britain, but acceptable to devolve the power to determine the position on euthanasia in Scotland? What is the difference in principle between the two issues?

Mr. Dewar: It is not a matter of principle, and it is not a matter that I was asked to address. Let me explain what I mean by that. It was suggested to me that I had no confidence in the competence of Members of the Scottish Parliament to make these decisions. I have every confidence in their competence: the question is whether they should have the competence. That is an important distinction. In the practical world of medicine and in the social world in which we live, there would be a strong likelihood of cross-border traffic, and we should not contemplate that.

Mr. Salmond: Why should there be a difference between Northern Ireland, where people expect that difference to be acted on, and Scotland, where a substantial difference from the current position would not be expected, as the Secretary of State has conceded? I have heard the Secretary of State argue many cases, and I think that I know which are his and which are not. Did the initiative to take abortion out of the competence of the Scottish Parliament come from him and his Scottish Office Ministers?

Mr. Dewar: I do not suppose that I will be able to convince the hon. Gentleman. There was considerable 


debate with colleagues in the Scottish Office, and we came to the decision that I am now defending. I ask him to accept that.
The law in Northern Ireland is very different, because it is a special case. Abortions are illegal except when necessary to save the life of the mother, or when continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of serious injury to her physical or mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said bluntly that she believes that that is not the right approach. That is a matter of dispute and debate, and there will be many different opinions in the House. The special social and political situation in Northern Ireland is not a reason for contemplating further differences in the United Kingdom in this sensitive area. That is the basis of my case.
There will be Scottish representation at Westminster, and Scottish Members will have a free vote on any private Member's Bill. They will have their say, and their argument will no doubt be put fairly. There will be a provision for consultation between the Scottish Executive and the British Government. It will always be a free vote, but consultation will have a place and will be of some value.

Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has placed much emphasis on the undesirability of cross-border traffic. We are all agreed that, if abortion were to be a devolved matter, we do not know whether it would lead to a relaxation or a tightening of the law, so we do not know which way the cross-border traffic would flow. Does he accept that that important factor, along with others, would be taken into consideration by Scottish parliamentarians? They should at least be given the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Dewar: Yes, I agree that that factor should be taken into account, and I am sure that it would be. I have listened to the speeches of Conservative Members for eight long days. We have often been told that we must assume that certain possibilities might occur. If we are asked to change the jurisdiction, we must make such assumptions and reach a conclusion accordingly. I have reached a balanced conclusion, and I shall hold to it.
The argument falls in favour of the position that we established in 1967, and which we have maintained ever since. Throughout the United Kingdom, common criteria and common conditions must be met before a termination can take place. I am genuinely sorry that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who feels strongly about this matter, took it upon himself to say during his speech—so there was no ambiguity—that the attitude of the Government was conditioned by cowardice. That was an unfortunate thing to say. The fact that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, and I with him, does not mean that I would ever accuse him of cowardice. I regard him as a somewhat impetuous figure, but certainly not as a coward.
If that had not been the case, it might have occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the easy option was to go in the other direction. I do not suppose that he will stand up and tell me that, and I am not inviting him to do so; but, if we had gone in the other direction, we would have been under attack from the Liberal Democrats, the nationalists and the Tories. We took a principled stand, however. We argued it out. We considered that, in all the circumstances, my argument was right, and I invite the Committee to stand by me now.

Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State's performance was one of the least effective defences that he has given in our

debates on the Bill. We have asked for detailed reasons for the reservation; we have asked whether it involves a different ethical issue from those involving, for instance, euthanasia, but we have been given no answer. We have asked how Scotland differs from Northern Ireland in this respect, but again we have been given no answer.
It being three hours and thirty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 160, Noes 278.

Division No. 235]
[8.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Allan, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fox, Dr Liam


Arbuthnot, James
Fraser, Christopher


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Garnier, Edward


Baker, Norman
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Baldry, Tony
Gibb, Nick


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Gill, Christopher


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Boswell, Tim
Gorrie, Donald


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gray, James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brand, Dr Peter
Grieve, Dominic


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Breed, Colin
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Browning, Mrs Angela
Harris, Dr Evan


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hawkins, Nick


Burnett, John
Hayes, John


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Horam, John


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Chidgey, David
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jenkin, Bernard


Clappison, James
Johnson Smith,


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Keetch, Paul


(Rushcliffe)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Collins, Tim
Key, Robert


Colvin, Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cotter, Brian
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


(Perth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Curry, Rt Hon David
Leigh, Edward


Dafis, Cynog
Letwin, Oliver


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Day, Stephen
Livsey, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Loughton, Tim


Evans, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Fabricant, Michael
McFall, John


Fallon, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fearn, Ronnie
MacKay, Andrew


Flight, Howard
Maclean, Rt Hon David






McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNamara, Kevin
Stunell, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Swayne, Desmond


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Swinney, John


Moore, Michael
Syms, Robert


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norman, Archie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Oaten, Mark
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Tyler, Paul


Paice, James
Tyrie, Andrew


Paterson, Owen 
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric 
Wallace, James


Randall, John
Walter, Robert



Wardle, Charles


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


Rendel, David
Welsh, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Ruffley, David
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


St Aubyn, Nick
Willis, Phil


Salmond, Alex
Yeo, Tim


Sanders, Adrian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Spicer, Sir Michael





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clelland, David


Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coaker, Vernon


Alexander, Douglas
Coleman, Iain


Allen, Graham
Colman, Tony


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cooper, Yvette


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F
Dalyell, Tam


Benton, Joe
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Betts, Clive
Davidson, Ian


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bradshaw, Ben
Dawson, Hilton


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dismore, Andrew


Browne, Desmond
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Byers, Stephen
Drew, David


Caborn, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cann, Jamie
Edwards, Huw


Casale, Roger
Efford, Clive


Caton, Martin
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Etherington, Bill


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fatchett, Derek


Clapham, Michael
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Clark, Dr Lynda
Fitzsimons, Lorna


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Flint, Caroline


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Flynn, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Forsythe, Clifford


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek





Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonnell, John


Foulkes, George
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Fyfe, Maria
McIsaac, Shona


Galbraith, Sam
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Galloway, George
McLeish, Henry


Gardiner, Barry
McNamara, Kevin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gerrard, Neil
McWalter, Tony


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Goggins, Paul
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michael, Alun


Grogan, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gunnell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hain, Peter
Moffatt, Laura


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Harris, Dr Evan
Morley, Elliot


Healey, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hepburn, Stephen
Mudie, George


Heppell, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hesford, Stephen
Norris, Dan


Hill, Keith
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hoey, Kate
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Home Robertson, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hood, Jimmy
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom


Hope, Phil
Pertiam, Ms Linda


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pond, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pound, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Powell, Sir Raymond


Hutton, John
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jenkins, Brian
Radice, Giles


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Rapson, Syd


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Roy, Frank


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ruane, Chris


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Keeble, Ms Sally
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Salter, Martin


Khabra, Piara S
Sarwar, Mohammad


Kidney, David
Sawford, Phil


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shaw, Jonathan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sheerman, Barry


Kingham, Ms Tess
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Skinner, Dennis


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Lepper, David
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Leslie, Christopher
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Levitt, Tom
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Linton, Martin
Soley, Clive


Love, Andrew
Southworth, Ms Helen


McAllion, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McCabe, Steve
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stevenson, George


Macdonald, Calum
Stewart, David (Inverness E)






Stinchcombe, Paul
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stoate, Dr Howard
Walley, Ms Joan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Ward, Ms Claire


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Watts, David


Stringer, Graham
White, Brian


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
(Swansea W)


(Dewsbury)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth (Ctwyd W)
Wise, Audrey


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Woolas, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Todd, Mark
Wray, James


Touhig, Don
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Trickett, Jon
Wyatt, Derek


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Mr. Jim Dowd and Jane Kennedy.


Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 555, in page 75, line 17, after '1968', insert
', the Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994'.

No. 556, in page 75, line 21, leave out 'medicines' and insert
'medical supplies or medicinal products which (in either case) are'.

No. 557, in page 75, line 23, at end insert—
'Interpretation
Medical supplies" has the same meaning as in section 49(3) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.
Medicinal products" has the same meaning as in section 130(1) of the Medicines Act 1968.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 76, leave out lines 14 to 20.
The issue is straightforward, so I can deal with it rapidly. The amendment would give the Scottish Parliament the power to determine the remuneration of judges of the Court of Session, sheriffs, members of the Lands Tribunal for Scotland and the chairman of the Scottish Land Court.
We think that the proposal to reserve this matter is the result of judicial trade unionism. [Interruption.] There are nods in knowing quarters. Scottish judges are anxious to ensure that their pay is related to the pay of English judges and presumably they are afraid that, at some time in the future, the Scottish Parliament might reduce their wages. That Parliament will have to pay for the judges, and it is reasonable for it to determine their remuneration. If it is unfair, I am sure that the judges have ways of getting back at the Parliament. I see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not control this matter. The issue is simple and straightforward, however, and, having succeeded with hypnotism, I hope that we can succeed on judges' pay.

Mr. McLeish: Unfortunately, I am unable to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request. The determination of judicial salaries is a reserved matter because the Government consider it right for there to be comparability of salaries for the judiciary throughout the United Kingdom. The review body on senior salaries will continue to report to the United Kingdom Prime Minister

on matters relating to judicial salaries and to other pay groups in the public service. The review body's independence and integrity is well established and it should be allowed to continue its work. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Gorrie: I am disappointed, but we are more interested in voting on one or two later issues. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 76, leave out lines 21 to 39.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 94, in page 76, line 28, at end insert—
'Imposing a duty on the Parliament to adhere to equal opportunities principles in its policies and procedures,'.

Government amendment No. 558.

Amendment No. 348, in page 76, line 32, leave out
'need to meet the equal opportunity requirements'
and insert
'principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.'.

Amendment No. 349, in page 76, line 35, after 'sex', insert sexual orientation'.

Amendment No. 350, in page 76, line 35, after 'sex', insert gender identity'.

Government amendment No. 559.

New clause 7—Equal opportunities in conduct of business—
'.—The Parliament shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.'.

New clause 8—Principle of equality of opportunity—

'.—(1) The Parliament shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.

(2) After each financial year of the Parliament the Parliament shall publish a report containing—
(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during the financial year in question and
(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.'.

Ms Cunningham: Amendment No. 347 and amendments Nos. 348 to 350 are tabled in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) are also included. That means that the amendments are cross-party amendments, and I hope that the Government will consider carefully what I have to say.
I welcome Government amendment No. 558 because it goes some way towards what is intended in amendment No. 348, by amplifying the exceptions to the reserved powers. Although it does not go as far as I would wish, it empowers the Scottish Parliament to encourage—although not regulate—equal opportunities in our country. Government amendment No. 559 covers the subject matter of our amendment No. 349 by specifically


including sexual orientation within the definition of areas of equal opportunity, the observance of which the Scottish Parliament will be empowered to encourage. It also specifies age, language and social origin, which are equally welcome. I appreciate that the Government have come some way towards what I should like to see.
Scotland's gay community will welcome the Government's flexibility. The recognition of the specific discrimination that is faced by gay men and gay women in Scotland is heartening not just for them but for people throughout the United Kingdom. Equal opportunity and anti-discrimination regulations are a fast developing area. There is likely to be increasing pressure to improve legislation in that area and to widen its remit. Unfortunately, it seems that the Scottish Parliament will be unable to respond to those pressures to improve regulations against discrimination.
Amendment No. 347 is clearly substantive because it would result in the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of all equal opportunities legislation. The power would enable the elected representatives of Scotland's people to take the initiative in promoting equality in our country. It could mean more sensitive race relations legislation for Scotland and the stronger promotion of the rights of women and minority groups in our society.
I think that most people accept that although at one level problems of discrimination are the same for people throughout the world, particular circumstances in different countries make the needs of legislation different. The amendment would allow the Scottish Parliament to take steps forward. Indeed, the European convention on human rights would allow us only to take steps forward. I envisage a Scottish Parliament that would perhaps be more ground breaking than Westminster has been in the past. I hope that we can look forward to that, and I certainly do not think that any minority group in Scotland should feel threatened by the powers that would rest in the hands of Members of the Scottish Parliament. As the legislation stands, that Parliament will have the power only to encourage the observance of the existing equal opportunities legislation and can only impose duties on public bodies to observe that legislation It is not clear what sanctions there would be if those duties were, in any way, not carried out.

Mrs. McKenna: Does the hon. Lady agree that the way to change people's opinions is to win hearts and minds on this issue? Much of the work by Labour local authorities since 1984 has been about that: persuading people and creating the right climate. That is what brought about a cultural shift in attitude in Scotland. Will not the rights given to the Parliament do more than legislation?

Ms Cunningham: I certainly agree that one has to change the hearts and minds of people; I do not think that any of us would disagree with that. We will not effect the substantial and long-term change which, I presume, most of us would like without real social change within the population, but we need the legislative back-up to reinforce that—otherwise we would not have existing anti-discrimination legislation. One tends to go with the other. Legislation without the changes in society will perhaps be difficult to enforce, but simply changing social thinking without legislation is not enough either.
I agree with the hon. Lady at one level, but we can take it further forward by legislation and I would have hoped that we could have done so in the Parliament. I would certainly have wished to have been able to argue for that in the Parliament. Specific issues with which we have to deal in Scotland would be helped by our being able to address them in a specifically Scottish context.
8.30 pm
Amendment No. 348 would move the situation forward at least some way. The Parliament would at least be given the power to promote equality of opportunity in Scotland's public bodies by imposing certain duties on those bodies to secure equal opportunities. The amendment has been prompted by a question mark over the relative powers given to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, and the belief among several commentators that Scotland will have weaker powers to promote equal opportunities than Wales.

Mr. Dalyell: This is not a hostile intervention, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and I are a bit curious to know what examples the hon. Lady has in mind. It would clarify her argument. She said that there were things that could be done better. There may be, but what examples does she have in mind?

Ms Cunningham: The composition of racial minorities in Scotland is different from that in England. [Interruption.] Hon. Members buzz about on the Back Benches, but there has been much controversy over attitudes towards English people in Scotland. There is little point in trying in Westminster to deal with the problems that arise in Scotland because it will not be seen to be something that can properly be dealt with in Westminster. A Scottish Parliament would be better placed to tackle the issue.

Mr. Salmond: Am I right in remembering that my hon. Friend is the only hon. Member who has taken legal action against an anti-English group in Scotland?

Ms Cunningham: I cannot speak for anyone else, but it is true that I did so. Each country has different demographics and Scotland has different demographics from other parts of the UK. Let us accept that fact and, in doing so, go on to try to deal with it in the way that seems best for that country. We are not going to get that opportunity, which is sad.
I should like to deal with the relative difference between what is being proposed for Scotland and what appears to have been proposed for Wales. The commentators who have examined the matter may have got it wrong, but a different wording is used and I should like to hear the Minister's response on the issue.
On the face of it, it looks as if the Scottish Parliament will have weaker powers than the Welsh assembly. A duty has been imposed on the Welsh assembly to ensure that its functions—

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish this point because it concerns the purpose of the amendment?
The Government of Wales Bill says that functions should be exercised with due regard to the
principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
Most commentators regard the equal opportunities requirements that are defined in the Scotland Bill as weaker than the
equality of opportunity for all people
requirement in the Government of Wales Bill.
I should like to hear the Minister's response to that. It may be difficult for him because he, like me, may not be familiar with the exact wording of the Government of Wales Bill, but our amendment would include in the Scotland Bill the same wording as appears in the Government of Wales Bill. It is perceived that that would give the Scottish Parliament a much wider remit. Present equal opportunity requirements cover only race, gender and, to some extent, disability, whereas
equality of opportunity for all people
would cover a much wider range—for example, sexual orientation and gender politics, so I am keen for the Minister to indicate some of the thinking behind the relative powers granted to Scotland and Wales.
Amendments Nos. 349 and 350 simply amend by addition the existing exceptions. I have largely dealt with amendment No. 349, but I press the Minister on amendment No. 350, which would include gender identity within the equal opportunity definitions.

Mr. Browne: I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving way; I realise that time is short. Early in her speech, she referred to the European convention on human rights—a reference that has been troubling me ever since. Has she taken into account the effect of the incorporation of the convention into UK law and the requirement that that will make of the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a manner that is consistent with the convention?

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I said. I said that incorporating the convention would allow us to take steps forward. We could improve on that. We could do better than is suggested by that. We will not be able to do worse, so no one need be concerned. Concern seems to have been expressed in several debates that, if Scotland gains the ability to legislate on certain matters, it will end up being far more restrictive and more discriminatory or anti-freedom. In this case, the European convention would absolutely ensure the benchmark, which I think could be improved on. Nothing could stop a Scottish Parliament going further and doing better than that. It will not be able to do worse. That was the point that I made earlier.
The amendments would include in the Bill explicit references to sexual orientation and gender identity. Many people may think that they are subsumed, but explicit references send out a fairly vital signal that Parliament is accepting the reality of discrimination in those areas. However, the Government have not accepted amendment No. 350, although, as I have said, they have come part of the way forward in relation to amendments Nos. 348 and 349.
I am aware of the decision of the European Court of Justice in 1996 in the case of P. v. S. and Cornwall county council. I hope that members of the faculty who may

know much more about that case than me, do not immediately leap to their feet to talk and ask about it, but, as I understand it, that case ruled that discrimination against a transsexual person on account of his or her transgender status is equivalent to sex discrimination that is covered by the equal treatment directive. I know that United Kingdom law on sex discrimination would still need to be updated to reflect that decision of the European Court of Justice.
I should like to hear the Minister's comments because I accept that it is possible that the Government will not accept my amendment No. 350 until they have addressed the issue of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which now appears to be lacking somewhat given that European decision. I look forward to a positive comment from the Minister to the effect that that is what the Government intend to do.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the equal treatment directive deals with regulation of the labour market in Europe, I wonder whether the hon. Lady agrees that that alone would not answer the case because there are other forms of discrimination, not just in jobs.

Ms Cunningham: The hon. Lady is right. That is discrimination in a particular area, but it points in the direction in which we should be going. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. It may be that the Government intend to look at the Sex Discrimination Act anyway.
The group contains a number of other amendments and new clauses. The SNP is broadly in favour of the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and her colleagues. I urge the Government to consider carefully the concerns that will no doubt be expressed by that hon. Lady.
It has always been my belief that a Scottish Parliament presents us with an opportunity to take radical steps forward in Scottish society and to take us into the 21st century with laws that ensure non-discrimination on the basis of sex, age, religion, race or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, we are not presented with that opportunity, and I should like to hear the Government respond positively to all these amendments. In any case, I have every confidence that, within the next 15 years, we will get the Parliament necessary to make the change.

Mrs. Fyfe: I congratulate the Government and welcome the fact that they have tabled amendment No. 559, which would include sexual orientation in the interpretation of equal opportunities set down on page 76 of the Bill. It is an important move to recognise that particular form of discrimination, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham). The Government are making progress on that front in Northern Ireland and UK-wide. Clearly, we are going to see change that was resisted by the previous Government during their term in office.
New clauses 7 and 8 were tabled because I believe that it would be good to have something like them in the Bill. New clause 7 would ensure that the Scottish Parliament made arrangements to conduct all its business with due regard to equal opportunities "for all people". The Bill requires the Scottish Parliament only to encourage the observance of equal opportunity requirements listed on


page 76 and imposes a duty on public bodies. As the Bill stands, it could do that, while being remiss in its own conduct.
New clause 8 refers to the Scottish Parliament's functions and calls for an annual report showing what has been done and an assessment of the effectiveness of any action. It will not have escaped the notice of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that the words in new clause 8 are the same as those in clause 113 of the Welsh Bill.
I want to make it clear that I am not calling for Scotland to have totally separate law-making powers on equal opportunities. That should be a reserved matter. However, I want the Parliament to have full control over what it does within its devolved powers, so that if it is so minded, it can make advances in the practice of equal opportunities. Parliaments can list all sorts of ways in which prejudice should not be allowed and where it should be confronted and made illegal, but the inculcation of good practice is essential, as is providing a good example.
Equal opportunity is a fundamental principle that the Scottish Parliament will want to observe. I wonder whether there can really be any objection to making that explicit in the Scotland Bill.
I do not want to speak for long because I know that other hon. Members want to participate, but I have heard one objection. The suggestion is that there is no need to put anything in the Bill because the fact that it is a Parliament means that it will be able to decide what it wants to do. We have sat here for many an hour over past weeks telling the Scottish Parliament what it will and will not do. We have even found time to discuss whether it will deal with hypnotism. I hope that my hon. Friends can look at this before the Bill goes to Her Majesty for approval.
The Scotland Bill is an excellent Bill—a first-class piece of work in many ways. However, I should like to correct this minor flaw.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have heard from the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) that she does not believe that the Bill as drafted goes far enough with regard to anti- discrimination invocations on the Scottish Parliament. She believes that the Scottish Parliament would be able to improve on that. Amendment No. 347 would delete the reservation altogether and leave the matter entirely up to the Scottish Parliament.
The hon. Member for Perth is right to dismiss the intervention of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) on the European convention on human rights. That convention deals not only with anti-discrimination but with a whole range of issues, some of which are among the reservations in the Bill and some of which are not. For example, the European convention deals extensively with the rights of prisoners and that is not reserved. The Government have not been advancing that case in talking about the issues that are to be reserved.

Mr. Browne: The point that the hon. Gentleman may wish to dismiss, given the advice that he has been giving other hon. Members, is that, in terms of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, there will

be a requirement on the Scottish Parliament to legislate in a manner consistent with that convention. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that?

Mr. Jenkin: I agree entirely with that. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be implying that, because the European Commission of Human Rights is an international obligation, that is a justification—

Mr. Browne: Convention, not commission.

Mr. Jenkin: I believe that the body is called the Commission of Human Rights: the convention is the document. Just because something is an international obligation, it does not necessarily have to be reserved.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a minor point and I do not want to dwell on it for too long. I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again because we do not have a great deal of time for this debate.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was once again, ironically, in anti-devolution mode. She was justifying the reservations in the Bill when there are no practical reasons why this matter should not be devolved.
We have here yet another example of a contentious issue—it is particularly contentious among Labour Members—over which the Government, for political convenience, wish to keep control at Westminster. The devolution of the issue to the Scottish Parliament would inevitably lead to embarrassing differences between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, even if the Labour party was in a majority in both places.
It is the Conservative party's policy to respect all people regardless of their race, colour, creed, sex, religion and so on and to respect all people primarily as individuals.

Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that it is Conservative party policy to be completely non-discriminatory against people whatever their ethnic origin, race or sex, why did Margaret Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, make that speech about our native culture being swamped by immigrants to this country?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely irrelevant point. I will not be sidetracked into a debate on a speech made almost 20 years ago by a former Conservative party leader, who did a great deal for this country.
We respect people primarily as individuals. All people should be accorded their liberties and rights, regardless of their circumstances. The guiding principle of an atmosphere of anti-discrimination is tolerance. Conservatives are in the vanguard in changing attitudes towards, for example, those with a different sexual orientation. Although some people argue that society would not develop tolerance towards minority groups without anti-discrimination legislation, many people—not only Conservatives—remain inherently suspicious of such an approach. It could be argued equally well that the


acceptability of anti-discrimination legislation simply reflects the fact that attitudes in society are changing already.

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman must have a very short memory. Most hon. Members recall section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and how disgracefully the Government behaved on that occasion.

Mr. Jenkin: That section of that Act was to prevent local authorities galloping off with ratepayers' money, spending it on priorities that were not the direct priorities of local authorities. If one asked an average taxpayer whether he or she wanted money spent on those activities, they would express a very clear view.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way to the hon. Lady again. It is so easy to antagonise her that I rather regret having given way to her initially.
The imposition of draconian anti-discrimination laws has to be handled with great care, because it is all too easy to substitute one type of intolerance of minorities for another—such as intolerance of those who do not support imposition of specific anti-discrimination laws. The hon. Member for Maryhill has just demonstrated that.
Article 19 of the European Community treaty that essentially deals with the principle of equal pay for men and women has given rise to the equal treatment directive—which has allowed the European Court of Justice to develop the highly dubious doctrine of "indirect discrimination" whereby it is judged illegal to treat part-time workers differently from full-time workers simply because a majority of part-timers tend to be women and a majority of full-timers tend to be men.
The laws of a tolerant society should, as far as possible, seek to protect freedoms rather than to impose obligations that might seem arbitrary and unjust in their application. For that reason, I support equality of the age of consent at 16, for example, for all people.

Ms Osborne: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that all anti-discrimination legislation should be abolished?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) should listen more carefully to what I am saying.
We remain inherently suspicious of laws that corral individuals and groups of individuals into legally defined categories, to be treated differently, and therefore to be regarded differently. Ultimately, so-called anti-discrimination legislation may do the opposite, so that people are treated as part of a category, rather than being accorded the respect that they deserve as individuals.
Surely everyone should agree—this may answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ayr—that the perfect society would be one in which such legislation is superfluous, and in which all people are treated equally according to their individual qualities, without the need for legal sanction.

Mrs. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have listened very carefully to the speech being made by the Opposition spokesman, and wonder whether it is within the context of this group of amendments. It seems that the

hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is sharing his anti-European views rather than speaking to the amendments.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has so far been in order.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful, Mr. Martin. It seems that my comments are inciting exactly the type of intolerance that a tolerant society should not exhibit.
Until we establish a perfect society, the issues that we are debating are bound to be controversial—as we have seen in this debate. There will always be those—among whom I include some hon. Members—who are more concerned about equality and parity of outcome than about the simple fairness with which individual cases are treated.
I remind the hon. Member for Perth that she favoured the words
equality of opportunity for all people",
which does not necessarily mean that there will be, for example, equal numbers of sexes in the Scottish Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many are there?"'] There are two sexes.
The question that we must confront is whether such issues should be the responsibility of Westminster or of Holyrood. We have tabled none of the amendments in this group, and therefore take the privilege of commenting as dispassionate observers.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have given way enough.
The logic of the Scottish National party's amendment No. 347 accords with the cry of pro-devolution campaigners that this Parliament should trust the Scottish people. It is extraordinary that that reservation in the Bill shows, once again, that the Government do not trust the Scottish people with a contentious matter. The Government's amendments in this group amplify that lack of trust.
The SNP amendments demonstrate that both it and the Government want the same obligations to be imposed on the Scottish Parliament. However, with additional logic, the SNP wants those obligations to be imposed by the Scottish Parliament itself and not by Westminster.

Mr. Browne: rose—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Jenkin: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman).

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that he was perfectly right to mention the European Court of Justice, as matters that we are debating could be taken there for a decision. Does he agree that that court—that supreme court of European member states—has a pretty poor record in defending the interests of women workers?

Mr. Jenkin: Again, I shall not be tempted into a debate entirely on the European Court.
In principle, if those obligations are to exist, they should be self-imposed rather than imposed from above.

Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and do not intend to do so again.
We shall not be voting for any of the amendments in this group. The reality behind the amendments is an ugly competition to decide who wins the prize for political correctness. Specifically lurking in the amendments is the issue of candidate selection—which will be debated in a later group of amendments—and the conflicting legal opinions in the Government on the legality, or otherwise, of positive discrimination. That issue was raised in the debate on Second Reading, when it was made clear—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will discuss those matters when we reach that later group of amendments.

Mr. Jenkin: The fact remains that the SNP, and its separatist counterparts in other parties, is looking forward to the Secretary of State's humiliation when he fails in the Scottish Parliament on the gender equality issue—which the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposed, and to which, originally, the Secretary of State gave his approval. It will be yet another bone of contention between London and Edinburgh for nationalists to chew on, demonstrating yet again the real lack of consensus that surrounds the project's crucial details.

Ms Osborne: I support those amendments which seek to inculcate the principle of equal opportunities in the way in which the Scottish Parliament conducts its business and in the exercise of the functions devolved to the Parliament, including the provision of an annual report on how that is being achieved. That would strengthen the Bill as well as emphasising the intention that the Parliament will conduct its business in line with the year 2000, not the dark ages.
The Minister may well say that the Scottish Parliament can consider such matters for itself, but it has been my experience that unless a clear commitment to equal opportunities exists from the start, it is at best pushed on to the sidelines or, at worst, ignored.
9 pm
Labour Members are very well aware of the strength of feeling on this issue, and this is currently highlighted at the moment in relation to equal representation. However, this is but the culmination of many years of work in the sphere of equal opportunities carried out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) stated, by local authorities and trade unions.
A culture of promoting equality has gradually been created in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom by local authority women's committees. This is not and should not be the property of any one political party or organisation, expendable if there is a change of political climate, a cut in resources, or even a change of majority

control in the Parliament. I use my experience as an example. I was formerly a councillor on Kyle and Carrick council. When Labour lost control of the council to the Conservatives, the Conservatives closed the women's unit and the creche which had been very popular locally.
We have an opportunity to make good equal opportunities practice a reality from day one, but experience shows that monitoring and evaluation are required if an equal opportunities policy is to be effective.
Let us consider the example of violence against women. Tackling this problem is one of the Government's three main priorities for women. Many reports on this topic have been produced over the years—some have sat on the shelf, while others have been implemented piecemeal. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that recent research has shown that women, especially those in rural areas, do not experience a consistency of service nor a coherence of approach across Departments and agencies. Proper monitoring arrangements could ensure a more effective response to this and other issues.
I return to the importance of a modern approach. I believe that equal opportunities are central to this and to the new Scottish Parliament. There is plenty of best practice to which the Scottish Parliament can look, and I am sure that many women councillors in Scotland can teach the new Members of the Scottish Parliament a thing or two about equal opportunities and especially about operating on the basis of consensus.
In the new Scottish Parliament, issues that have not traditionally been at the forefront of debate, but which have a tremendously important impact on all our lives, have to be formalised by inclusion in the Bill. I hope that that notion will find favour with the Minister and that consideration will be given to supporting it.

Mr. Gorrie: The Liberal Democrats are happy to support amendment No. 347, which we hope will be voted on shortly, and the others that try to promote the cause of equal opportunities in the Scottish Parliament. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) put his name to several of these amendments to show our support.
We think that amendment No. 347 is the best. It provides that equal opportunities should be deleted from the list of reservations, thereby leaving the matter entirely under the control of the Scottish Parliament. However, there is a great deal of merit in the two new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), and if it is easier for the Minister to accept them than to accept the amendment tabled by the SNP, and to which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland has put his name, we shall certainly encourage him to do so.
We take a straightforward approach. Everything that refers to affairs in Scotland should be dealt with in the Scottish Parliament, unless there is a good reason to the contrary. We see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not legislate for equal opportunities.
As has been said, the Scottish Parliament will be constrained by international and European obligations, and by existing British law. It is very unlikely that it would reduce the power of equal opportunities legislation, and I would be confident that Members of the Scottish Parliament would move in a progressive direction rather than relax the rules.
Clearly, the Government think that encouragement is adequate. I suppose that Government amendment No. 558 is a step in the right direction, but it is a pretty feeble step. It would make the reservation in the schedule read:
The encouragement (other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular of the observance of the equal opportunity requirements.
The Parliament could make noises but do nothing. With due respect, that is the wettest amendment I have come across in my brief time in the House.
We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to legislate. I probably do not have the necessary experience or imagination to conjure up the right suggestions but, as has been said, the Scottish Parliament might wish to take a more active line against domestic violence by organising tenancies for women in a more favourable manner. As I understand it, it would not be allowed to do so. The Parliament might wish to legislate differently from England in order to discourage racism at football matches. It might even wish to discourage people at Murrayfield from whistling when the English are about to take a place kick.

Mr. Browne: I am very interested in those examples, but my understanding is that they represent breaches of the criminal law, which is well within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and its devolved powers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give a case that is not within the devolved legislative powers of the Scottish Parliament, and thus provide the example that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) was unable to give, other than in the context of discrimination against England.

Mr. Gorrie: With respect, I should have thought that altering tenancy arrangements to make them more favourable to women and offering positive discrimination to assist battered women was not a matter of criminal law. There was recently a case in which a senior police officer—

Mr. Browne: rose—

Mr. Gorrie: I am not a lawyer and you are, but I am trying to approach the matter in a common-sense manner—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am not a lawyer.

Mr. Gorrie: I apologise, Sir Alan. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a brilliant advocate, so I shall not allow him to trip me up.
In a recent case, a senior police officer felt that he had been discriminated against in applying for the post of chief constable in Scotland because he was English. There are other such cases in Scotland where different issues arise because of the prominence of English and other European people. The Scottish Parliament might wish to take a slightly different attitude from that of the Westminster Parliament to ensure that those people got a fair deal.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the example that the hon. Gentleman has just used, may I remind him that a Scots

police officer sought the post of Chief Constable in Northern Ireland and was most put out when he did not get on the shortlist? Many of us would agree that it made good sense not to have someone from elsewhere taking on such an important post in the Province.

Mr. Gorrie: The person to whom I referred was already working in Scotland, so he would not have been imported. However, the Scottish Parliament might wish to draw the rules slightly differently from the Westminster Parliament because different circumstances apply in Scotland. The same argument applies to equal opportunities as applies to education, health, housing and many other matters. The Scots should have the right to do things a bit differently if they want to and are prepared to pay for it.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made several references to housing as if the Scottish Parliament would be prevented from implementing anti-discrimination policies in housing because of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Race Relations Act 1976 and so on. Positive Action in Housing, one of the foremost campaigners in Scottish housing, is proposing a variety of changes to Scottish law. Such matters will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and it would be perfectly consistent for it to continue with those policies without offending anyone.

Mr. Gorrie: The body to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not receiving adequate Government funding, but that is a separate issue.
The right of a Scottish Parliament to legislate is important. It may be that, through inexperience, my examples are not too hot, but the principle is that the Scottish Parliament should be allowed to legislate. We cannot predict the future and, as has been said, equal opportunities is a rapidly moving subject and new aspects may occur that none of us—even those who are far more intelligent than me—can foresee. Why should the Scottish Parliament not control measures relating to equal opportunities? It seems to be a perfectly straightforward issue and the Minister must give positive reasons why that should not be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Godman: I shall be brief. First, I offer my compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on her new clauses and her presentation of them. I hope that she agrees that the Government's amendment No. 559 comes close to addressing some of the legitimate concerns that she shares with the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham).

Mrs. Fyfe: For the record, yes, I agree.

Dr. Godman: That was an astonishingly brief intervention from my hon. Friend and I have no difficulty in thanking her for it.
We are concerned that the Scottish Parliament should include a substantial number of women representatives from all points of the compass. We are also concerned about the people who are employed at the Parliament. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State are concerned to protect the interests of those with disabilities. I should certainly like the Scottish Parliament


and the Welsh assembly to employ people with disabilities—especially learning disabilities. All kinds of people should be involved, not only as elected representatives, but in various other functions and jobs. People aged 50 or more should also be employed as there should be no ceilings in terms of career prospects.
It is important that the Government recognise the need to defend, and indeed promote, the interests of people with mental or physical disabilities. We all have constituents with learning disabilities who find it enormously difficult to find work. The new Parliament could set a splendid example in terms of fair and reasonable contracts of employment for people employed at Holyroodhouse. It should be Calton hill, but I had better stick to Holyroodhouse. I once suggested that we should use that much underused building, the palace of Holyroodhouse, but I was slapped down, so I shall not return to that.
We have to send a message to the people of Scotland that, in addition to fair play on sexual equality, there will be fairness for many other groups, including those of different sexual orientation. That must cover the representatives in the Parliament and those who are employed by it.

Mr. McLeish: I wish that there had been more time for this important debate. We may have some differences on some of the amendments, but there is a general concern that the Parliament should push forward the frontiers of equal opportunities. In the 10 minutes available, I should like to respond positively to the constructive points that have been made.
Government amendment No. 558 is intended to clarify the fact that the exception from the reservation designed to ensure that the Parliament has competence over the encouragement of equal opportunities does not extend to prohibition or regulation. It was always our intention that the Parliament and the Executive should be able to encourage equal opportunities, but not that they should be able to impose new duties or additional regulation in equal opportunities matters. That is the substance of the reservation. The amendment will also ensure that the Parliament is not prevented from encouraging equal opportunities generally.

Mrs. Laing: rose—

Mr. McLeish: With the greatest courtesy, I should like to get through what I have to say. There are several amendments to deal with and I have some constructive comments to make.
Government amendment No. 559 makes it clear that the Parliament will be able to discourage discrimination on grounds of a person's age, sexual orientation, language or social origin. It reflects concerns that have been expressed in Committee and outside. Although the amendment will not change the existing legislation on equal opportunities, we recognise that people can suffer discrimination on those grounds, especially sexual orientation. I commend both amendments to the Committee.
I am also very aware of the need for a close and effective relationship between the main equal opportunities bodies in Scotland—the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Disability Council—and the Scottish Parliament and Executive. As I made clear earlier in Committee, they will not be cross-border public bodies because it is not our intention that the Scottish Parliament should have competence over their functions.
However, I am concerned that there should be a Scottish element in the membership of those bodies and that the Scottish Parliament should have a guaranteed opportunity to debate their work. The Government intend to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that one member of each of the EOC, the CRE and the NDC will be appointed with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers and that there will be provision for the reports of those bodies to be provided to Scottish Ministers and submitted by them to the Parliament at Holyrood. That will allow the Parliament to keep in touch with the work of the equal opportunities bodies. That is an important step forward, within the framework of the general reservation of those bodies.
Within the framework set out in the Bill, the Parliament and Executive will be able to create and implement their own equal opportunities policies. They will be able to encourage equal opportunities by exhorting and giving guidance to public authorities and others to adopt equal opportunities policies, running advertising campaigns and setting up an advisory committee. They will be able to seek to influence the development of equal opportunities legislation in Westminster. Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster can ensure that Scottish interests are reflected in any new legislation.
On page 76, the Bill refers to important equal opportunities legislation—the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Those important competencies are reserved to Westminster. Scottish Members at Westminster will contribute to those issues. As I have just made clear, the Parliament and the Executive will maintain strong links with the EOC, the CRE and the NDC. One member of each will be appointed with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The bodies' annual reports will, of course, be provided.
Amendments Nos. 347 to 350, tabled by the Scottish National party, raise related issues to those covered by new clauses 7 and 8, which were tabled by my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 347 would simply remove equal opportunities from the list of reserved matters. That would undermine the level playing field for business and individuals in employment and other matters in the UK, and clearly the Government cannot accept that.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) knew that I could not accept amendment No. 347, because she tabled an alternative, amendment No. 348, which would enable the Scottish Parliament to require public bodies to make arrangements with a view to securing that their functions are carried out with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. That would go further than the exception to the reservation, which is to enable the Scottish Parliament to establish requirements relating to the observance by public bodies of the legal requirements of equal opportunities that may be in place.


That approach is needed to preserve the level playing field. Leaving scope to impose greater duties would be contrary to that underlying principle.
Amendments Nos. 349 and 350 would add "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" respectively to the interpretation of equal opportunities in the schedule. I have already spoken to Government amendment No. 559, which adds age, sexual orientation, language and social origin to the list, and which, of course, accepts the point made in respect of amendment No. 349. Any list could be extended to cover all possible instances of discrimination. I hope that the hon. Member for Perth will recognise the steps that we have taken to meet her concern. I therefore ask her not to press her amendments to a vote.
Amendment No. 94 and new clauses 7 and 8 reflect a concern to support equal opportunities that I wholly share. Equality of opportunity will be fundamental to the Scottish Parliament both in the way in which it conducts its business and in the policies that it adopts through legislation. Our White Paper made that very clear. However, our priority is to ensure that the Scottish Parliament will be able to encourage the observance of equal opportunities. The exceptions are designed to ensure that the Parliament can exercise a role in respect of equal opportunities by, for example, supporting the various campaigns to which I referred earlier, giving guidance to public bodies dealing with devolved matters and developing non-discriminatory policies in all devolved areas. The two new clauses would impose new duties on the Scottish Parliament to observe equal opportunities in the conduct of its business and the exercise of its functions. New clause 8 would require an annual report. I hope to persuade my hon. Friends that there is no need for the provisions.
I do not think that such provisions would sit well with the role and purpose of the Scottish Parliament. It would be quite inappropriate for a body with primary legislative competence, unlike the national Welsh assembly, to be given duties and required to report on its performance as if it were an executive body. Whereas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has concluded that it would be appropriate for those and a range of other duties to be imposed on the Welsh assembly, which in certain key respects is construed as an executive body, it would be inconsistent with the status of the Scottish Parliament and an unacceptable constraint on its discretion.
We must remember that we are creating—I hope—a mature and responsible Parliament, which will be capable of making important decisions and developing its own policies. I am sure that equal opportunities for all will be one of its guiding principles—although I repeat that we do not need to legislate for that here. I hope that I have said enough to convince my hon. Friends that amendment No. 94 and new clauses 7 and 8 are unnecessary, and that they will not press them to a vote.
This matter is very important not only to the Government, but to me. It is crucial that we lay markers down to do things differently in the new Parliament. That is the essence of devolution—devolving competencies, but ensuring that, if we can do better, we will do better. I sincerely hope that the debate's unifying theme is one of taking equal opportunities very seriously. Given that and the Scotland Act that the Bill will surely become, I am sure

that Members of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood will be able to move forward and give every minority adequate protection in Scotland in order to develop their potential.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I welcome some of the Minister's comments, particularly the moves that I mentioned in respect of some of the amendments. I welcome his further statement on the various bodies' Scottish element and their membership, and the fact that such bodies will be required to submit reports. I am sure that we are all thankful for that.
I am disappointed by the Minister's retorts about amendment No. 347. The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne)—I hope that I am not misquoting her, even though I did not take a note of it at the time—said that equal opportunities had to be at the heart of the Scottish Parliament, which is absolutely right. I agree with the Minister that the new Parliament has to be one that does better. I would like it to do a great deal better all round, but it will not have the opportunity. I therefore wish to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 284.

Division No. 236]
[9.24 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul


Baker, Norman
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Kirkwood, Archy


Brake, Tom
Livsey, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Breed, Colin
Moore, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE File)
Salmond, Alex


Chidgey, David
Sanders, Adrian


Cotter, Brian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Stunell, Andrew


(Perth)
Swinney, John


Dafis, Cynog
Tyler, Paul


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wallace, James


Fearn, Ronnie
Welsh, Andrew


Foster, Don (Bath)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil


Hancock, Mike



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mr. Alasdair Morgan and Mr. Donald Gorrie.


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Betts, Clive


Ainger, Nick
Blackman, Liz


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Alexander, Douglas
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Allen, Graham
Bradshaw, Ben


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atkins, Charlotte
Browne, Desmond


Austin, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Banks, Tony
Byers, Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Caborn, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Begg, Miss Anne
Canavan, Dennis


Beggs, Roy
Cann, Jamie


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Casale, Roger


Bennett, Andrew F
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chisholm, Malcolm






Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hill, Keith


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hoey, Kate


Coaker, Vernon
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Iain
Hood, Jimmy


Colman, Tony
Hoon, Geoffrey


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cooper, Yvette
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cranston, Ross
Hutton, John


Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Ingram, Adam


Cummings, John
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tarn
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Dawson, Hilton
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dismore, Andrew
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Donohoe, Brian H
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kidney, David


Drew, David
Kilfoyle, Peter


Drown, Ms Julia
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Edwards, Huw
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Efford, Clive
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Etherington, Bill
Leslie, Christopher


Fatchett, Derek
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Love, Andrew


Flint, Caroline
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Forsythe, Clifford
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foulkes, George
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galbraith, Sam
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Galloway, George
McIsaac, Shona


Gardiner, Barry
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McLeish, Henry


Gerrard, Neil
McNamara, Kevin


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McWalter, Tony


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy


Golding, Mrs Llin
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meale, Alan


Grogan, John
Michael, Alun


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mitchell, Austin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Soley, Clive


Motley, Elliot
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stevenson, George


Norris, Dan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stinchcombe, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stoate, Dr Howard


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stringer, Graham


Pearson, Ian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pendry, Tom
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pickthall, Colin
(Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pond, Chris
Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen


Pound, Stephen
Todd, Mark


Powell, Sir Raymond
Touhig, Don


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Trickett, Jon


Primarolo, Dawn
Truswell, Paul


Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Purchase, Ken
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Quin, MsJoyce
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Radice, Giles
Vis, Dr Rudi


Rapson, Syd
Walley, Ms Joan


Raynsford, Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
White, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Roy, Frank
(Swansea W)


Ruane, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Winnick, David


Ryan, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Salter, Martin
Wise, Audrey


Sawford, Phil
Woolas, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Worthington, Tony


Sheerman, Barry
Wray, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wyatt, Derek


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Mr. Jim Dowd and Jane Kennedy.


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being four and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendments made: No. 558, in page 76, line 29, after 'encouragement', insert
'(other than by prohibition or regulation) of equal opportunities, and in particular'.

No. 559, in page 76, line 36, after 'disability', insert
',age, sexual orientation, language or social origin,'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 484, in page 77, leave out line 10.

The Chairman): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 485, in page 77, line 16, at end insert—
'Timescales, time zones and the subject matter of the Summer Time Act 1972'.

Mr. Jenkin: These are probing amendments. This is one of the matters that surely should continue to unite our kingdom. However, we are likely to be in agreement with many of the arguments advanced against the amendments. We do not expect for a moment that the Government will accept them, but they give us another opportunity to expose the faulty logic that lies at the heart of the Bill, and the future friction that may result.
The question of Greenwich mean time has been a contentious one over many years. There was the British standard time experiment in 1968–71, which did not settle the issue. In the previous Parliament, two Bills from another place were presented to the House in 1995 and 1996. A private Member's Bill was presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) during 1995–96, entitled the British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill, which proposed to put the United Kingdom on central European time.
Those in Scotland and Northern Ireland have always argued a different case from those in England, yet the Scots have always won. This flies in the face of what pro-devolutionists usually say about the House of Commons, which is that Scotland is always outvoted. The majority in England has always bent over backwards on this issue. Now that there is to be a Scottish Parliament, the first question we must consider is whether this English tolerance will continue.
The Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West was a case in point. At one stage, it looked possible that it would get through, but the then Secretary of State for Scotland made a gallant stand in the Cabinet to ensure that the Government, as the Library brief on the Bill makes clear, did not actively lend their support to, or provide any extra time for, the measure. He described said that it was
misguided, unnecessary and would be deeply damaging in Scotland.
His arguments won the day, because he was a Scottish Secretary of State at the heart of the process of government, and a full-time contributor to the politics of the United Kingdom. This is a classic example of how the Parliament of the Union has always in the end respected the minority rather than the majority.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has his notes in front of him, but I remember that that Bill failed because not enough people turned up on a Friday to vote for it. Where were his colleagues on that day?

Mr. Jenkin: The Bill might have taken on a life of its own had it not been for the attitude of the then Cabinet, swung by the then Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman doubts my word, he can ring him up and ask him.
The second question that must be answered is this. If English and Welsh Members of Parliament eventually choose to outvote their northern colleagues—the Bill offers the certain prospect that there will eventually be fewer of them—should not the Scottish people be able to

decide their own time? Under a single Parliament, it has always been considered undesirable that the United Kingdom should be split between two time zones, but that may change if the Scottish Parliament, under this amendment, decided to exercise its choice in favour of the lesser of two evils.
The Government argue in the notes on schedule 5 that it is necessary to be in the same time zone because of the need to create a common market in the United Kingdom. Clearly, that is rubbish, considering that the Common Market in Europe does not rely on member states being in the same time zone. Portugal, Greece and the United Kingdom are not on central European time.
It would be unsatisfactory for the United Kingdom to be split in that way. It is the policy of the Conservative party, both north and south of the border, that the interests of the United Kingdom are best served by the whole kingdom living in the same time zone, and that our hour should be Greenwich mean time, or British summer time, not central European time.
The interests of the whole are best served by recognising the interests of the minority, but whether that is sustainable after the birth of the Scottish Parliament is another matter, because the responsibility that English and Welsh Members of Parliament feel for Scotland and Scottish affairs will inevitably be diminished.
If Westminster puts the United Kingdom on central European time, under this amendment the Scottish Parliament could at least be offered a choice.

Mr. McLeish: I shall do the Committee a favour. I have five pages of script with which I could entertain the Committee, but in view of the importance of the item that follows—sex discrimination and selection of candidates—I shall simply say that time scales, time zones and summer time must be reserved matters. It makes sense to have common standards throughout the United Kingdom, not least to preserve a level playing field for business and services.
I thought that we were going to have more than a probing amendment, but I entirely agree with every sentiment that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) expressed. His contribution had nothing to do with the amendments that were tabled. As far as we are concerned, these are reserved matters. It would be useful for the Committee to get on with the business.

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New clause 9

SEX DISCRIMINATION IN SELECTION OF CANDIDATES

'.—Nothing contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall render unlawful any action by a registered political party for the purpose of selecting candidates for election to the Parliament as constituency members or regional members.'.— [Mrs. Fyfe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Fyfe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Court action for alleged sex discrimination—
'.—(1) In the case of any court action undertaken by a person who claims not to have been chosen as a candidate for a constituency or regional seat at any election for the Parliament on grounds of his sex, the court shall, in forming its judgement, take into account the compliance or otherwise of the registered political party concerned with any relevant United Nations Convention and with any relevant Resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and the extent to which any temporary special measures undertaken by the political party in question are in compliance with that Convention or Resolution.
(2) Such measures as are mentioned in subsection (1) shall not be held to be in breach of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, if both women and men have equal rights to selection as candidates for the political party in question, and the criteria for selection as candidates do not discriminate against men or women.'.

Mrs. Fyfe: I thank all Labour women Members of Parliament who joined me this morning in paying tribute to Emily Pankhurst, one of the founders of the Women's Social and Political Union. It is 70 years ago this month that the House debated the Second Reading of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill which gave all adult women the vote.
Ellen Wilkinson took part in that debate. When she entered the House, she said that she felt that she had done so as a result of the labours of some of the best women that this country or the world had ever known. They made it possible for Parliament to do what it did that day. They made it possible for us women to be here today, and to argue, along with the support of our male colleagues, that the 1928 Act was not the final word, but that we must do all we can to achieve equal representation in our 21st-century Scottish Parliament.
The Labour party is the only party that has come up with a system to achieve that. When I tabled my new clauses, I thought that the Liberal Democrats would also seek to achieve the same end in their own way. But let us look at the Liberal Democrats' role in all this. In November 1995, they signed a formal electoral agreement with the Labour party. I have it here with me. It states:
The Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formally agree to accept the principle that there should be an equal number of men and women as members of the first Scottish Parliament. In order to achieve this aim, the parties agree and commit themselves to:
Select and field an equal number of male and female candidates for election, taking into account both the Constituency and Additional Member List candidates;
Ensure that these candidates are equally distributed with a view to the winnability of seats;
Use an Additional Member System … for elections;
Ensure that the size of the Scottish Parliament is large enough to facilitate effective democratic representative Government.
That is signed by Marilyne MacLaren, convenor, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—I exempt her from the critical comments that I am about to make—and by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.
That followed years of promises, when we all met in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, that the Liberal Democrats would play their part; that they were every bit

as committed to gender equality as we in the Labour party were. They were utterly opposed to doing anything by law within the Scotland Bill which would have guaranteed it—that was held to be against Liberal Democrat principles. Therefore, we, in our honest efforts to work together with the Liberal Democrats for the greater good of Scotland, agreed to work separately in our own ways and in our own parties to achieve equal numbers of men and women in the Scottish Parliament. The goal was 50:50.
Because other parties are opposed to the whole concept, or unwilling to back positive action, we knew before the Bill was printed that 50:50 representation could not be achieved. But still we could hope for a greater proportion of women in the Scottish Parliament than had been seen anywhere else in any national Parliament.
That was until last weekend, when the Liberal Democrats at their Scottish conference decided to do nothing but offer the usual meaningless, fruitless encouragement—the kind of inaction that has seen them deliver one female Member of Parliament in Scotland in 75 years of women being elected to Parliament.
The Liberal Democrats have betrayed their own women members, who believed that proportional representation would, of itself, deliver for women. They have behaved treacherously to the Labour party and all those in the Scottish Constitutional Convention who, over the years. committed themselves to equal representation in the Scottish Parliament. Worst of all, they have done their bit to ensure that the new Scottish Parliament will not reflect the people who vote for it. It will be a male-dominated body after all.
The only hope for women in Scotland lies with the Labour party. It is because of my anxiety that it should not go wrong, despite our best intentions, that I tabled my new clauses. But whatever the Liberal Democrats say or do tonight, nothing can hide their shame or protect them from the blame that lies squarely at their door.
We in the Labour party have made no attempt to impose our method on anyone else. This debate is about defending decisions democratically arrived at. Whether Opposition Members agree with the method or the aim is irrelevant; the point of this debate is that political parties should be free to choose their candidates. We intend to ensure that at least our contingent in the new Scottish Parliament will be balanced.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall give way, but I hope that I am not doing something stupid.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady says that political parties should be free to choose as they wish, but the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which she seeks to exclude and which was passed by a Labour Government, specifically prohibits what she proposes as interpreted by the European Court.

Mrs. Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman bides his time and is patient, he will hear my argument about that.
When the Secretary of State proposed writing a short provision into the Scotland Bill to disapply the Sex Discrimination Act provisions to the electoral process, or make it utterly clear that a political party could pursue


gender balance, an ad hoc committee chaired by the Lord Chancellor was informed that it would be impossible to make the change for the Scottish Parliament, but not for the Welsh assembly and the regional assemblies for England.
So far, it is only in Scotland that there is any commitment to twinning or any other positive action, so why cannot the law in Scotland be different? We already have our own separate legal system. We already accept that proposals for Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland do not all have to be alike. Untidiness has been allowed for time and again, so why can we not make that change? Risking continuing with the same old inequalities would be worse than a little untidiness. However, I am told that, even if the Government were willing to amend the Sex Discrimination act, we would be up against the equal treatment directive; so let me deal first with the Sex Discrimination Act.
Until the Jepson case, it was widely understood that the actions of political parties were outwith the Sex Discrimination Act. Section 33(2) says that section 29(1) of the Act should not be construed as affecting any special provision for persons of one sex only in the constitution, organisation and administration of a political party.
When Mr. Jepson brought his case against the Labour party founded on section 13, the Equal Opportunities Commission obtained an opinion from leading counsel, which agreed that selection for parliamentary candidates did not constitute employment, and thus did not fall within the scope of the SDA in any case. The selection process was to be considered an internal matter for the political parties. The EOC was also advised by leading counsel, subsequent to the Jepson and Kalanke cases, that the election of parliamentary candidates fell within the scope of neither the SDA nor the equal treatment directive.
The industrial tribunal agreed with Mr. Jepson, although tribunals elsewhere in the country would not have done so. The crucial point is that one industrial tribunal decision does not make law for the whole country, and does not set a precedent.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: No, I have already given way. In the time available to me, I intend to go through the detailed arguments.
In coming to its decision, the industrial tribunal referred to the equal treatment directive. That was rather odd, because European directives are not an aid to interpretation of UK Acts of Parliament. The tribunal could legitimately have asked the European Court of Justice for a ruling on whether the directive applied in the Jepson case. Instead, it used its own interpretation of the directive to distort the meaning of section 13 of the Sex Discrimination Act.
When the Labour party did not appeal against the case, it was widely accepted that it could not do so at the time, because selections for candidates were under way. However, there was talk of amending the SDA at some time to make the position clear and beyond doubt, but at present there is no proposal to do so. Apparently, that is because, even if we did so, we could still fall foul of the equal treatment directive.
I shall now deal with the European scene. Nothing stops a potential litigant taking up a case under the equal treatment directive, although that would be much more

difficult and complex than raising it under the Sex Discrimination Act, because the directive may be relevant only if the selection of parliamentary candidates comes within its scope. There has been no ruling on that whatever; indeed, no equal opportunities legislation of the European Union relates specifically to national electoral systems. The legal base for the directive is article 235TEC, which regulates the labour market. There is no general power to go beyond those objectives.
The Marschall decision and the Kalanke decision, which it overruled, were in both cases to do with civil servants applying for a single vacancy. Article 24 states that the provisions of the directive shall be without prejudice to measures to promote equal opportunities for men and women. The judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Marschall case ruled that a selection procedure that gave priority to female candidates where fewer women than men were employed was not unlawful discrimination, provided that there was an objective assessment of male as well as female candidates.
It should be noted, however, that the Labour party's twinning proposals do not give priority to female candidates; they ensure broadly equal representation. If a man could pursue a court action because he was not selected as a candidate, so could a woman with equal justice.
Noreen Burrows, professor of law at Glasgow university, has pointed out that, in the 1997 French parliamentary elections, the Socialist party reserved 30 per cent. of constituencies for female candidates. The French Parliament is not brand new, and such action involved a bigger upheaval than starting from scratch, as we are. No challenge was made by individuals in France or by the European Commission, and no mention was made in France of the equal treatment directive. I wonder why we are being advised that such a challenge is likely.
After the general election, the French Prime Minister suggested the introduction of a parity clause to the French constitution. "Quel horreur!", some people might say, yet there was no reaction from the European Court of Justice, or anywhere else.
A number of European electoral systems provide for positive discrimination by way of quotas. None of those arrangements has been challenged by the Commission as a breach of the equal treatment directive. It is far from clear whether the directive even applies to electoral law. I wonder why we are so out of step with the rest of Europe.
Other events in Europe are relevant. One of the five objectives of the European Commission's fourth equal opportunities action programme is promotion not of some women or a few women, but of gender balance. Article 3 of the Maastricht treaty states:
The community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women.
The Amsterdam treaty allows states to take measures to ensure full equality for women and men, including those that would allow an under-represented sex to pursue a vocation.
The treaty of Amsterdam amends the treaty of Rome to make it clear that positive actions to redress the under-representation of women are lawful. Article 3 states:
the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between men and women".


I could refer to other articles, but I hope that I have made my point.
We also have a United Nations convention to back us. In 1986, the previous Government signed up to the report of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which meant that they agreed with the elimination of discrimination against women. Article 4 of the convention encourages the use of "temporary special measures" to give effect to article 7. Many other aspects of the CEDAW report support positive action.
It is worrying, therefore, that the leaked memo from Lord Irvine states:
It was particularly awkward that Donald's proposal was limited to the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, because this would allow it to be presented as an artificial and expedient response to a particular political problem.
The temporary special measures that the UN convention has encouraged are temporary, and they respond, on one occasion only, to a particular problem. I urge the Law Lords to reconsider the matter, and to think more carefully about the CEDAW report. I have been told, however, that UN conventions are not recognised in British law, which is a pity. I had hoped that, over time, the issue might have been taken more seriously.
We also signed up to the Beijing declaration and platform for action, which arose from the UN conference on the status of women. It calls for additional measures to improve women's participation in decision making, particularly where they have been traditionally under-represented, and especially in elected positions.
That might be regarded as insignificant in some quarters, but British politicians signed the declaration, and we should show that they meant it. Women have traditionally been under-represented in elected positions in Scotland. There have only ever been 28 women Members of Parliament in Scotland from all parties, from 1923 to the present day, which is an average of one every three years.
If the Government accept my new clauses or take similar action of their own later, it will strengthen the position of any political party, large, small or tiny, that may otherwise have to defend itself against legal challenge.
I have been asked why I am concerned. I accept that attitudes in the Labour party have changed. There was widespread support for twinning and for equal representation, but it would only require one objection to take the party to court and throw us into difficulty. It is because I am concerned about that possibility that I am asking my hon. Friends to consider this matter carefully before much more time elapses.

10 pm

Dr. Fox: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was cruel in her criticism of the Liberal Democrat conference. Most opinion pollsters would agree that 10 is not a representative sample. She should not base her arguments on such a small number as appeared at the Liberal Democrat conference. It was the only conference that had to shift to a cupboard upstairs to ensure that delegates felt cosy.
I am not particularly concerned about the Labour party's internal strife or its internal grief. The Conservative party has nothing to do with positive discrimination in selection procedures. We hope to get a wide spectrum of candidates, who are selected for their ability, not their anatomy.
I have more than a little sympathy with some of the hon. Lady's points. I question the quality of the conflicting legal advice that the Government have received. I was interested to read an article in The Scotsman this morning, which suggested that the Labour party had received conflicting advice from two sources close to the Prime Minister. Mrs. Blair has advised that the "cleanest and clearest" way of achieving gender balance is for Ministers to change the law, whereas the Lord Chancellor has given quite different advice. It would be helpful if the Minister would clarify the legal position according to the advice that the Government have received.
The hon. Lady referred to our freedom to operate as political parties within the restrictions of the legislation that she mentioned. If she is correct, and as we pride ourselves on our freedom of association, perhaps we should take a more libertarian view of our political practices and give ourselves greater freedom in how we conduct our policies and how we present ourselves to the electorate.
I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with the reasonable points that the hon. Lady made, although she would not expect me to agree with a great deal of what she said. Some of her comments were legitimate in a genuinely democratic argument. We must decide whether, in the conduct of our politics, we should be bound by legislation passed in the 1970s, or whether we are free in a truly democratic state.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: One of the several reasons why the people of Scotland voted for a Scottish Parliament, and why so many people are looking forward to its new politics, was the thought of having the first ever Parliament with gender equality. It would be the cruellest of ironies if that were to be prevented by the equal treatment directive after a century of unequal selection treatment of men and women.
The debate is essentially about the equal treatment directive. My understanding is that the Government have no objection to clarifying the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but their legal advice is that the new clause would contravene the equal treatment directive. Will the Government take a little more time to take further legal advice? The professor of European law at Glasgow university has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
There are two lines of argument about the equal treatment directive: first, that it does not apply to the electoral process, and secondly, that exceptions are allowed under article 2.4 to redress inequalities. I hope that the Government will take more time to consider the matter, and will not rule out clarification or temporary special measures as proposed by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
The Labour party is fully committed to achieving gender equality. We are merely asking the Government to go the last mile. Great progress has been made. The party


is committed to twinning, and will go ahead in any case; we tabled the new clause just in case there was a challenge.
As I said, we have one last mile to go, but the Liberal Democrats have many miles to go. It would be utter hypocrisy if the Liberal Democrats and others used the new clause as an excuse for not establishing party procedures to achieve gender equality. My plea to the Government is to take a little more time, and on that basis, I shall abstain in this evening's vote.

Mr. Wallace: I agree with one thing that was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm): it would indeed be perverse if an equal treatment directive was used in a way that frustrated an opportunity to achieve gender balance. I shall return to that point later. I cannot, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's accusation of hypocrisy, or his suggestion that we would use the new clause as an excuse not to establish provisions to try to achieve gender balance in our parliamentary representation. The opposite is the case: we shall use the new clause in order to establish arrangements for gender balance.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) seems so frustrated about the fact that the Lord Chancellor would not even see her to discuss the issue that she is taking it out on the Liberal Democrats. She would not allow the facts to get in the way of a good rant. The facts of the Liberal Democrats' position were set out in our conference in Dunfermline, and remain the party's policy. I do not recall that the hon. Lady ever said that anything was wrong with that policy; indeed, at the time she probably congratulated us on it.

Mrs. Fyfe: What excuse will the hon. and learned Gentleman offer for breaking the solemn agreement that his party reached with the Labour party in November 1995?

Mr. Wallace: I shall not offer any excuse; I shall merely tell the hon. Lady how the policy can be fulfilled. This is the policy of our party:
If the Scotland Bill exempts the political parties from sex discrimination legislation, the following system shall be used for the selection of list PSPCs"—
that is, prospective Scottish parliamentary candidates.
(i) In combination, the Local Parties within each Euro-constituency shall draw up a short-list from the male applicants and a short-list from the female applicants;
(ii) all members of the relevant Local Parties shall select the male and female members of the list in a ballot using single transferable voting … and in a separate count of the ballots shall order the lists".
Let me pause parenthetically to note that the lists will be drawn up by our membership; they will not be imposed from on high, as the Labour party seems to propose.
The document continues:
(iii) Conference shall elect four men and four women to an Electoral Agreement Committee, which shall be charged with:
(1) taking into account the terms of the electoral Agreement;
(2) taking into account the results of the PSPC selection in all constituencies where the Party's candidate received more than 15 per cent. of the vote in the 1997 General Election;
(3) taking into account the likely overall gender balance of PSPCs within each Euro-constituency and neighbouring constituencies of similar geographic and political character;

(4) drawing up from the ordered male and female lists of short-listed applicants a final, integrated list for each Euro-constituency; and
(5) ensuring that the order of male PSPCs and female PSPCs on the final list in each Euro-constituency strictly adheres to the order arrived at by the all-member ballots."
In other words, a mechanism exists—if the Bill exempts the political parties from the sex discrimination legislation. That is what we are arguing for, and that is why we support the new clause.

Mrs. McKenna: How many candidates have already been selected, and how many are women?

Mr. Wallace: Twelve have been selected, three of whom are women; but, as the hon. Lady knows, the electoral agreement referred to a balance between the first-past-the-post system and the lists. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was party to the negotiations, but, if she had been, she would know that the lists were always seen as the mechanism through which we were most likely to achieve gender balance. We shall do that, if we can amend the Sex Discrimination Act.
I welcome the opportunity provided by the new clause, and look forward to joining the hon. Member for Maryhill in the Lobby. She cannot accuse us of hypocrisy; it is the Labour party that is putting up the road blocks, and preventing us from implementing mechanisms that have already been introduced.
As has been said, the Liberal Democrats took advice from Cherie Booth QC—principally with regard to the European elections, although the advice that we were given could also apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament. Her advice was that the clearest way of exercising positive discrimination was to disapply the Sex Discrimination Act from the selection of candidates. We understand that the minute from the Cabinet Committee, to which the hon. Member for Maryhill referred, states:
Without an amendment of the kind proposed by Donald"—
whom we assume to be the Secretary of State for Scotland—
a political party adopting a selection process which appeared to discriminate in favour of women could be liable to challenge along the lines of the Jepson case.
To be fair, it seems that the Secretary of State for Scotland realises the nature of the problem and, to his credit, he has been trying to remove the block of a possible challenge to parties that were trying to get some form of gender balance.

Mr. Dalyell: Am I mistaken, or is the hon. and learned Gentleman quoting from a Cabinet Committee document? If he is, how did he get that document?

Mr. Wallace: I am quoting from The Guardian of 3 March. It set out the terms of the leaked minute, and I am not aware of anyone challenging the accuracy of that leak. I have outlined the position that was taken by the Secretary of State but, regrettably, that position was not taken by the Cabinet Committee.
I have said that we have a mechanism, but I can also say that we have more than that. The Trust for Scottish Liberal Democracy, whose members met at the weekend, has agreed that a substantial sum will be made available


to women seeking selection in the lists. I understand that that will be matched by women Liberal Democrats to help to cover the costs of travel, campaigning and child care.

Mrs. Irene Adams: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in terms of proportional representation his party is already over-represented here and is unlikely to get any Members in the top-up of the Scottish Parliament, in which he could bring his mechanism into being?

Mr. Wallace: I cannot agree that my party is over-represented here. We had 17 per cent. of the vote, and we have only 46 seats out of 659. That is not fair representation. Our Scottish seats are almost exactly proportional because we got 13 per cent. of the vote and 13.9 per cent. of the seats.

Mr. John Home Robertson: No top-up.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system upon which we are about to embark, because the additional member list will have top-ups from parts of the country in which we are not—

Mr. Home Robertson: Do the Liberal Democrats expect to get top-up seats in Glasgow?

Mr. Wallace: We shall get extra in Glasgow. The hon. Gentleman is in for a shock, because Labour will get no extra seats from the list in Glasgow: it is already over-represented there by a long way. I do not want to be tempted down the road of explaining the system of proportional representation to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give him a seminar on another occasion.
The other parties will find the going difficult. We have heard that in Wales there might be legal challenges to what Labour is trying to do to achieve gender balance. We have tried to wrestle with the problem, and if the new clause is accepted, a mechanism will be put in place. The Cabinet Committee minute also states:
Harriet Harman also supported Donald. She accepted there was a risk of a successful challenge under the ETD, but this had to be set against the risk that the representation of women in the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly would be unacceptably low if no action were taken, and an opportunity to advance modern democracy in these new institutions would have been lost.
This is an opportunity. There are no incumbents and there is a chance to achieve a gender balance that has not been achieved in this place. We say, "Give us the legal backing to do it and we shall do it." That is why we shall support the new clause. Those who stand in our way will be hypocritical.

Mr. McLeish: I do not think that I have seen the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats quite so angry for some time, but there may be some good reasons for that. I shall cover the points that have been raised and address some of Labour's concerns about the Liberal Democrats. Our White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" made it absolutely clear that we attach great importance to equal opportunities for all—including women, members of ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. Our White

Paper urged all political parties offering candidates for election to have that in mind in their internal candidate selection processes.
New clause 9 proposes that we should amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove the selection procedures for parliamentary candidates from its scope. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and I have had many discussions on the issue. I have tremendous sympathy for the intentions behind the new clause. We want the Scottish Parliament to be women friendly. We are trying to ensure through the building design and through other preparations that women will want to serve as Members of the Scottish Parliament. The facilities will be designed to serve equally the needs of women and men; there will, for example, be day care provision for children. On the procedures, our consultative steering group has already given thought to how the Parliament can be made more accessible to women and those with family responsibilities.
The procedures will also be designed to be participative and, as far as possible, non-confrontational, so that all MSPs, both women and men, can contribute as fully as possible. That is how we are going about the question of encouraging equal representation in those particular areas.

Mrs. Laing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: No. With the greatest courtesy, I should rather get through some of the elements of the matter.
10.15 pm
The requirements of European employment law and particularly the equal treatment directive have established the framework within which we must work. Any amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act enabling the parties to avoid falling foul of that domestic legislation might be found by the European Court of Justice to be in breach of the equal treatment directive. We could not guarantee that the parties would be free from challenge. The challenge could arise in the domestic courts, which could refer the case to the European Court of Justice. The result could be a severe disruption of candidate selection procedures.
On new clause 10, I appreciate that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women sanctions special and temporary measures. However, CEDAW does not override or exclude the requirements of the directive under EC law.
The treaty of Amsterdam may pave the way for long-term change, but it will not be ratified in time to affect these elections and will not have retrospective effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is aware that the Equal Opportunities Commission is examining the Sex Discrimination Act, but, again, the timing is not particularly convenient.
I appreciate that there is a view that standing for or being a Member of Parliament is not an occupation and therefore outwith the scope of EU law. However, the possibility of challenge exists and, in our view, it is more likely than not that such a challenge would be successful.
The Government have considered those matters very carefully. We appreciate that some people consider that there is no other way to secure equal representation,


but we believe that the risks of breaching our Community obligations are too great and that we would be inviting a damaging and disruptive challenge.
In our view, the key lies in the commitment of the political parties to bring forward women candidates through equal opportunities best practice. We are looking into the measures that could be taken by the parties within the scope of the law. I am absolutely delighted that the Labour party continues to seek legal ways in which to deliver the electoral agreement that it entered into in 1995 on the issue. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not walk away from equal representation and that other parties will start to take the matter seriously.

Mrs. McKenna: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McLeish: I would rather just proceed.
The Conservatives have at least been honest tonight. They want nothing to do with equal representation and they want no positive discrimination. There is honesty in that policy. It is certainly one with which I do not agree, but I remind the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that he signed up to an agreement in which we were all involved. At that time, it did not make specific reference to changing any particular legislation.
The electoral agreement that was signed on Thursday 23 November 1995 in Inverness by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party stated:
The Scottish Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats formally agree to accept the principle that there should be an equal number of men and women as Members of the first Scottish Parliament. In order to achieve the aims the parties agree and commit themselves to a number of measures.
There was no caveat about the Sex Discrimination Act or the equal treatment directive. It was simply an electoral agreement that was entered into, I think, in good faith. It still exists and I hope that, even after the debacle of the conference at the weekend, the Liberal Democrats will stand strong on the issue, fight for equal representation and not hide behind the cloak of lack of legislation to defend their position.

Mr. Wallace: May I take this opportunity to renew my commitment that we shall try to achieve gender balance in our parliamentary party within the law? As I have said, we have also committed a substantial sum to encourage and pay costs for women candidates seeking selection. I wonder whether the Labour party has done that.

Mr. McLeish: I hope that the spirit of that intervention conflicts with and contradicts a comment that appeared in The Observer at the weekend, that
the proposal"—
equal representation—
received the strongest criticism from other females. Moyra Forrest, a fellow Edinburgh councillor, accused MacLaren of dirty tricks and attempting to hijack the conference. 'If the women candidates are any good, they will emerge from the selection process,' she said.
'As a party, we do not practise discrimination and so we cannot be unfair to men in this fashion.'
I hope that the Liberal Democrats are back on course. The weekend's discussions did not help. The Labour Government and the Labour party are committed to seeing equal representation in the Parliament.
We have heard from the Liberal Democrats and from the Conservatives, but the Scottish National party is conspicuous by its absence on this issue.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Sir Alan. You know that I was rising during the debate. Is it in order for the Minister to criticise me when a time limit prevented me from speaking?

The Chairman: What the Minister says is entirely a matter for him. The Chair has called hon. Members in order, but there has not been an opportunity to call any hon. Member from the Scottish National party.

Mr. McLeish: I sincerely hope that, in the variety of ways available to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), he makes his party's position clear. The Labour party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have spoken up and we await the views of the SNP on the issue.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I am not sure whether the Minister has finished or is giving way to me. I should like to make the point—

The Chairman: Order. Unfortunately, the matter is resolved.
It being five hours and forty minutes after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 272.

Division No. 237]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Baker, Norman
Livsey, Richard


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Llwyd, Elfyn


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brake, Tom
Moore, Michael


Brand, Dr Peter
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Salmond, Alex


Cotter Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Stunell, Andrew


(Perth)
Swinney, John



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tyler, Paul


Fearn, Ronnie
Wallace, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Welsh, Andrew


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harris, Dr Evan
Willis, Phil


Harvey, Nick



Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Donald Gorrie and Sir Robert Smith.


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Banks, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Beard, Nigel


Ashton, Joe
Begg, Miss Anne


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atkins, Charlotte
Bennett, Andrew F


Austin, John
Benton, Joe






Bermingham, Gerald
Gardiner, Barry


Betts, Clive
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blackman, Liz
Gerard, Neil


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gibson, Dr Ian


Boateng, Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Goggins, Paul


Bradshaw, Ben
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Buck, Ms Karen
Grogan, John


Byers, Stephen
Gunnell, John


Caborn, Richard
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Cann, Jamie
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Casale, Roger
Hanson, David


Caton, Martin
Healey, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clapham, Michael
Hepburn, Stephern


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hesford, Stephen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hill Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cooper, Yvette
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hutton, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jamieson, David


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunliffe, Lawrence
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davidson, Ian
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dawson, Hilton
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Khabra, Piara S


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Kidney, David


Dismore, Andrew
Kilfoyle, Peter


Donohoe, Brian H
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Doran, Frank
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dowd, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Drew, David
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Drown, Ms Julia
Lepper, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Levitt, Tom


Edwards, Huw
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Efford, Clive
Linton, Martin


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Etherington, Bill
Love, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flint, Caroline
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McIsaac, Shona


Foulkes, George
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Galbraith, Sam
McLeish, Henry


Galloway, George
McNamara, Kevin





Mactaggart, Fiona
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWalter, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michael, Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stevenson, George


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mudie, George
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Norris, Dan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
(Dewsbury)


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pendry, Tom
Timms, Stephen


Perham, Ms Linda
Todd, Mark


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg 
Truswell, Paul


Pound, Stephen 
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond 
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Vis, Dr Rudi


Primarolo, Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Watts, David


Quin, Ms Joyce
White, Brian


Radice, Giles
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Raynsford, Nick
(Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wise, Audrey


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wray, James


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Salter, Martin
Wyatt, Derek


Sawford, Phil



Shaw, Jonathan
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Janet Anderson.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Sir Alan. It is a Standing Order, or an expectation, that one's vote should follow one's voice. Is it not also the case that one's vote should follow one's speech? If so, perhaps those hon. Members who spoke in favour of new clause 9 could explain why they did not vote for it.

The Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is simply wrong in his interpretation of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Sir Alan. During the vote, I observed the Minister in animated conversation with some of his hon. Friends. I do not know whether he


was trying to persuade them to abstain or to vote against their principles, but should he be trying to persuade them at all?

The Chairman: That is not unknown.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Sir Alan. As I am sure you will confirm, had we not run out of time, I was going to explain why I would have withdrawn the motion, because—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order. There was an opportunity for her to rise; she did not do so, and therefore did not catch my eye.

Orders of the Day — New clause 28

REGISTER OF CONCORDATS

'(1) There shall be a register of concordats where each concordat shall be registered.
(2) The register shall be held by:—
(a) the Public Record Office, and
(b) the Keeper of the Records of Scotland.
(3) A concordat shall be registered under subsection (1) above within four weeks of its execution.
(4) No Minister of the Crown shall enter into a concordat with the Scottish Executive unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.
(5) In this section "concordat" means any agreement between a Minister of the Crown and the Scottish Executive regarding the consultation arrangements and common United Kingdom guidelines in respect of:—
(a) any reserved matter under schedule 5,
(b) any devolved matter under section 29(4),
(c) any transfer of ministerial functions under section 49,
(d) any functions exercisable by agreement under section 51,
(e) any shared power under section 52,
(f) any cross—border public body under sections 83, 84 and 85, and
(g) any agency arrangements under section 87.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I did not realised that new clause 24 had not been moved.

The Chairman: It was a simple matter of running out of time. The time has elapsed, so we have moved on.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Sir Alan. I am learning how these new business programme motions work and I am still trying to work out what time we lose and when.
I am moving the new clause because, over the past three months, we have discovered increasing evidence of the concordat—a new phenomenon in our constitutional and political life. It arose originally in respect of an agreement on inward investment being sought among the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, but since then it has found new provenance in relation to many matters arising out of the devolution legislation affecting Scotland and Wales.
The Opposition consider that it is necessary to find out precisely what is happening, what the concordats will involve and how we can keep some check on their number. I am not certain what a collection of concordats will be called—possibly a canon of concordats or a collective of concordats. [Interruption.] I hear a suggestion that it should be a charm of concordats.
The new clause seeks to find a means of registering the concordats, so that the House of Commons can be aware of what they are and what they involve, and to establish a way in which the approval of the House—and, if necessary, the Scottish Parliament—can be sought for them so that they have a provenance greater than just the agreement of those who jointly sign them.

Mr. McAllion: How can the right hon. Gentleman hope to find out what a concordat between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will contain when the Scottish Parliament does not yet exist and cannot agree to any such concordat? In any case, I should have thought that, as Scotland's leading Roman Catholic, the right hon. Gentleman would know all about concordats. Does he not recall the concordats that the papacy entered into with Mussolini and Hitler?

Mr. Ancram: That is why I suggested that they might be called a canon of concordats. That is very much in line with the hon. Gentleman's thought process. He makes the first mistake that demonstrates the need for the new clause: he talks about a concordat between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. One thing that we do know about concordats is that they are not between Parliaments. The new clause would give Parliament the right to approve concordats before they were made. Although it is not in the new clause, I would be easy with the idea of replicating that in relation to the Scottish Parliament so that both Parliaments were involved in making the concordats.

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to obtain the support of the Scottish Parliament as well as of both Houses of Parliament at Westminster. Should not subsection (4) of the new clause have read "and approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament"? Would that not have made better sense than the present wording?

Mr. Ancram: That is precisely what I said before the hon. Gentleman intervened. Obviously, he was not listening. I said that there would be some sense in applying the new clause also to the Scottish Parliament, but that might be a matter for the Scottish Parliament when it draws up its own rules.
The purpose of the new clause is to give greater provenance to the concordats than appears to be the case, as far as we are aware. We do not know very much about them, partly because, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, there is not yet a Scottish Parliament with which to make them, although my understanding is that the concordats are already in draft or are being drafted on a contingency basis, allowing the Scottish Parliament or Administration to sign up to them. That may be because the Secretary of State and the


Minister of State see themselves as playing leading roles in the Scottish Parliament and believe that they will sign the concordats, although that too may not happen.

Mr. McAllion: Surely, no matter what may be drawn up on a contingency basis, it would have to be agreed to by the Scottish Parliament and might be completely revised once the Scottish Parliament had been consulted.

Mr. Ancram: Absolutely. I am not asking what will be in each concordat. I want to know the nature of the concordats. I want to find a way of ensuring that they are registered.
The Scottish Office provided us with a note about concordats on 27 February in answer to a written question. That gives us some information, but it leaves many questions unanswered. My strike rate in obtaining answers to questions during the passage of the Bill has not been high. I hope to be a bit more fortunate this time, as we come to the end of the Committee stage.
The document is called "Guidance on Concordats Between the Scottish Executive and UK Government Departments". It says that the purpose
is to preserve the good working relationships which currently exist and ensure that the business of Government in Scotland and Wales and at the UK level is conducted smoothly and efficiently after devolution".
It goes on:
Their purpose is not"—
the word "not" is underlined—
to create legal obligations or restrictions on any party; rather, they will set the ground rules for administrative co-operation and exchange of information.
We have heard about concordats that will be made on the arrangements for Scotland's voice to be heard in Europe and possible concordats to deal with negotiations on financial provisions for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly. The Scottish Office note says not that concordats will do more than merely preserve good working relationships, but that
Other, less formal, arrangements will be appropriate in many cases, and in others there will be no need for any standing arrangements at all.
As I understand it, the concordats will have no legal backing—I shall come back to that—but yesterday we were told that they would be the basis on which Scotland could be assured that its voice would be heard in the councils of the European Union.
The Scottish Office note continues:
one concordat—if required—might be prepared to cover in each case a wide range of the subjects covered by each of the current Scottish Office Departments or Welsh Office Divisions. This might relate to the business of the whole Department or Division or that covered by the management level immediately below that".
I do not understand what that means. With whom would such a concordat be made? It would merely register what happened in a Department.
I am even more alarmed that
a different approach … is that of having an overarching concordat"—

those are not my words, but those of the paper
between the Scottish Executive/Welsh Assembly and each Whitehall Department with a series of subsidiary concordats underneath that." 
How many subsidiary concordats do the Government envisage? How many overarching concordats with a pyramid of subsidiary concordats beneath it will there be?
The note continues:
in one or two cases an overarching agreement might be needed involving a number of Whitehall Departments dealing with working arrangements".
Emergency planning is given as an example. We are told later that,
in most cases, concordats will be bilateral".
but occasionally it may be sensible to have trilateral concordats. How many Departments can be involved in the concordats?
We are then told that there is another animal—as if we do not have enough concordats running around the jungle. A separate memorandum of understanding may be needed on particular cross-border public bodies. What is the difference between a memorandum of understanding, a subsidiary concordat and an overarching concordat? What is the nature of them, what will they do and what role will the House of Commons have in ensuring that they are suitable?
I am concerned about the role of the House of Commons, because the following paragraph is entitled "Who signs concordats?" We are told not that they will always be signed by Ministers from each Administration, accountable to their Parliaments, but that
Normally, concordats would be signed at senior official level, but if concordats concern politically sensitive issues they might"— 
not will
be signed by UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers or their Welsh counterparts." 
What will be the criteria to decide who signs them? Will their effect vary according to the signatories? Will a concordat signed by a Minister on behalf of his Government automatically come to an end in the event of a change of Government? Will concordats on technical matters signed by officials, who are unchanging, remain in force regardless of a change of Government? We need to know more about that.
I shall not bore the Committee with a long list of all the issues in the paper; suffice it to say that there is a paradox in the description of concordats. On one hand, they are unimportant and technical and aim merely to work out or provide for working relationships between Departments; on the other hand, they will be used to put in place enormously important matters such as the representation of Scotland in Europe. It is therefore important that we have greater understanding of them.
I have searched throughout the paper to find where provision for European representation will be made, but I can find only one reference to Europe. It comes under the heading "Common provisions", of which there are many. One of them relates to
exchange of information, including policy papers",
so the concordats cannot exactly be high-powered. However, a little further on, we find the phrase "arrangements for liaison"—not representation—
on EU and international matters".


Is that the basis on which we were asked yesterday to be assured that Scotland's voice will be heard powerfully in the councils of Europe?

Mr. Dewar: Dear, dear.

Mr. Ancram: The Secretary of State says, "Dear, dear," but he was the one who said yesterday that we do not need to stipulate such matters in the Bill because they will all be governed by concordat. If that is so, we have a right to know the basis of the concordats. They cover any financial arrangements; the whole question of Scotland's financing after devolution will be covered by the phrase relating to concordats, which are not based in any parliamentary provision, but are purely agreements made between two Administrations, and—as we understand it—normally signed by officials.
That brings me to questions to which we need answers tonight. We are told that concordats will be non-statutory; they are not intended to be legally enforceable contracts between the parties. I find that hard to understand. An agreement is a contract. Normally, from an agreement flow legal consequences. Will the concordats be justiciable in any form? What happens if somebody's rights are affected by either the making or the breaching of the concordat? Is that person entitled to go to court? Can he ask for judicial review? Can he ask for a finding of breach of contract because an agreement that he has made with somebody else has been broken? It is all very well writing on a bit of paper that such concordats are not legally enforceable, but they must have some provenance in law. We are not told what it is. To rely on something that is stated as having no legal enforceability in order to provide for vital Scottish interests seems to be less than appropriate.
Are the concordats of any legal value? Are they unilaterally capable of being breached? Am I right in thinking that one side can just say that it has decided not to continue with a concordat and that there is no remedy available if that should happen? What is the current example of a concordat? I understand from the paper that there are to be concordats between several Departments to regulate their relationships. Can we see the sort of concordats used at the moment—if they exist—so that we can have some idea of what such animals will look like? Who decides what is an overarching concordat? What is a concordat that is big enough to carry the type of representation in Europe and the type of financial provision that will need to be made? Who will decide when concordats are merely technical and are to govern relationships between officials?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has obviously analysed the provisions carefully. Is there any provision to enable the House of Commons, either now or at any time in future, to scrutinise or debate the content of concordats?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. There is nothing to that effect in the provisions as stated on the piece of paper with which we were provided as a result of a written question, but new clause 28 says:
A concordat shall be registered under subsection (1) … within four weeks of its execution. 

No Minister of the Crown shall enter into a concordat with the Scottish Executive unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament." 
That is important in establishing that concordats have some provenance in the democratic institution of the United Kingdom House of Commons.

Mr. Grieve: Does the information say whether, if a concordat were made and a private individual in reliance on it carried out an action, he would have a remedy by way of judicial review if the concordat were breached?

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. As I said earlier, I am looking for an answer to such questions. The paper merely says that the contract is non-statutory and not legally enforceable. There must be some remedy available against the breach of an agreement that is not a pactum illicitum—and there is no sign that such agreements are pacta illicita.
We need a reassurance about the concordats. They are the equivalent of what in America are called Executive agreements, the purpose of which is to bypass the need for Congress to scrutinise and agree treaties. Executive agreements are a means of bypassing the legislature. I am concerned by the fact that we are putting in place a process that could over time multiply in a big way. Literally hundreds of concordats could be signed by junior officials in Departments; yet, as things stand, there is no scrutiny of them in the House of Commons and no means of knowing what and where they are—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are too many conversations going on in the Committee.

Mr. Ancram: I shall finish on the following point, Mr. Martin. My new clause is designed to ensure that a register of the concordats is kept so that we know what they are and what they do. It also asks for the House of Commons and the other place to be given the right to approve them, to give them a basis in our constitution.

Mr. Dalyell: We have now come very near to the epicentre of the Bill, and we are on sensitive ground. This is part of the difficulty of having a subordinate Parliament in part—and only part—of a unitary state. Because of the lack of time, I have only one question for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. When they have flown the coop, and are away from the House of Commons and installed in Holyrood, if they are Ministers, will they not expect the absolute loyalty of the civil servants who work for them, draft the concordats and do the day-to-day work?
To whom will those civil servants be finally responsible? Will they be responsible to Ministers in Holyrood or will they be part of the home civil service? Will they be ultimately responsible to the head of the home civil service—Sir Richard Wilson, or whoever his successor may be?
There is a real dilemma here. Civil servants have to be responsible to one so-called "master"—although I do not particularly like the word. They cannot serve two masters. In that situation, they may have to choose. I ask simply: what will the choice for the civil service be? Will civil


servants owe loyalty to Holyrood or to Westminster? If to Holyrood, that would represent the beginnings of the break-up of the British state.

Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) waited a long time—until the very last debate in Committee—to begin his filibuster on the Bill. He took an extravagant length of time to make a point that, although important, could have been made simply and directly.
I have had some experience of the concordats, because some of them have fallen into my hands in a way that the Labour party used to relish in opposition, but deplores now that it is in government. One such was the concordat on inward investment, and in November I outlined its contents in an Adjournment debate.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) asked me whether I could give him a copy of the concordat, which put me in some difficulty, because, although I am committed to freedom of information, I am also committed to not helping the Tory party in any circumstances. There was therefore some tension, which I resolved by saying that I would place a copy in the Library.
Unfortunately, when I went to the Library to deposit a copy, I was told that it was a leaked document, and the Library's instructions were not to accept leaked documents for the perusal of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks pleaded with me again and again, but I had to refuse him.
I did put the concordat on the SNP internet site. If the right hon. Member for Devizes peruses that site, he will see a copy of the proposed concordat on inward investment which he is extremely anxious to see. It has been on that site for the best part of two months. I do not want to pursue how computer literate the right hon. Gentleman is, but he should get back to his office, dial it up as quickly as possible and print out a hard copy so he has it in front of him for the next debate.
My second experience of concordats was with the MAFF concordat on agriculture and fisheries with the Scottish Office. I received the concordat and some correspondence surrounding the negotiations on bringing forward the concordat. Significantly, memos from the Scottish Office said that the prime aim of MAFF in the negotiations was to preserve its position as the lead Department in agriculture and fisheries matters. As if by magic, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), has materialised on the Government Front Bench to confirm that point. That is very interesting.
Yesterday, in the debate on Europe, the Secretary of State for Scotland, no less, told us that the Scottish Ministers would have the opportunity to lead on agriculture and fisheries matters in the new arrangements. How fortuitous it is to have the Parliamentary Secretary on the Front Bench tonight—he was not here yesterday—to tell us that MAFF' s objective in the concordat is to preserve its position as the lead Department in the UK. I smell a rat, and all concordats on fish, agriculture, cows and other things should be published.
The very last point I want to make—

Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: No. I would love to give way to hon. Gentleman who, in his former constituency, had one farmer—I remember that from a previous speech. I want to ask the Minister a question which even the hon. Gentleman would not be able to answer, and I want to give the Minister two or three minutes to answer. In a previous parliamentary debate, I was told unambiguously that these concordats would not come into operation until the Scottish Parliament itself came into being. There is a suggestion going around Scotland that the concordat on inward investment will be implemented this summer. I want an unambiguous assurance from the Minister that no concordat will come into operation until the Scottish Executive—whoever that may be—is in a position to judge if that concordat is in the best interests of the Scottish people.

Mr. Davidson: Could I clarify whether the list of concordats in which the Scottish National party is interested includes the letter to Ian Lang, as was, from Margaret Ewing—headed "Dear Ian" and signed, "Love and kisses, Margaret"—when they were carving up the seats on one of the European commissions? Is that the sort of thing that the Scottish National party has in mind—because, if I remember correctly, it was not keen on having that made public at the time?

Mr. Hogg: I wish to build on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is plain from the discussion that the concordats are intended to regularise the relationship between Edinburgh and London. Inevitably, that will occasionally involve a shift in responsibility from London to Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned an example in relation to agriculture and fisheries. Surely this House should have an opportunity to decide whether or not we wish to approve a movement of responsibility from London to Edinburgh. There may be a good cause for that, but one thing is certain—this House must and should have the opportunity to debate it. Is the Minister proposing such a debate? If he is not making provision for such a debate, why not?

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. May I respond to what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has just said? If this House and the other place have to give approval, why not the Scottish Parliament? That also responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
The new clause is inadequate, and offensive to those who are seeking to become Members of the Scottish Parliament. I might have had some sympathy with the new clause if subsection (4) had included a reference to seeking the approval of the Scottish Parliament. As it stands, it reflects normal parliamentary practice in seeking approval.

Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

11 pm

Dr. Godman: I promise that I shall give way in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is painting a gloomy picture of developments and talking about the unravelling of the United Kingdom. I offer a general comment that relates, I think, to the new clause. We are engaged in the radical changing of our constitution. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would agree with me when I say that I hope fervently that within a short period we shall be debating in this place the setting up of a Northern Ireland assembly, along with developments elsewhere that you, Mr. Martin, would not allow me to discuss in detail.
It would be interesting to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about the devolution of powers to such an assembly. He talks about hundreds of concordats, but I would say that there will have to be terms of agreement involving what has been described as a subordinate Parliament. We are changing the constitution of the United Kingdom, as I have said. We have the Welsh assembly, and the Scottish Parliament is on the stocks. We may soon have a Northern Ireland assembly on the parliamentary stocks.
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are legitimate, as are some of those made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, particularly in relation to the fishing industry. This will never happen, but were I to be the Government spokesman for fisheries in the Scottish Parliament—

Mr. Salmond: Is the hon. Gentleman volunteering?

Dr. Godman: No, I am not.
With respect, I think that I have known the fishing industry longer than any other Member. My mother was a fishergirl, as was her mother, who came from Aberdeen. I made my first trip to the Arctic when I was 12; I stowed away on a trawler. I know something about the industry.
Were I to become the Fisheries Minister in Scotland, I would expect to play an equal role with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend is, of course, a first-class Fisheries Minister. It is easy for me to say as a Back-Bench Member—I see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan nodding—but as a team of Ministers going to a meeting of the Council of Fisheries, it is up to the member state to determine the roles played by the—

Mr. Salmond: A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was nodding—the Committee saw him doing so—when I said that he was trying to have that Department as the lead Department. The Minister nodded when he said that it would be a position of equality. In the space—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with the matters that are before us.

Dr. Godman: I shall not allow the hon. Gentleman to lead me astray, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. My intervention was related directly to the contents of concordats, which we are debating. If you would reflect on the matter, Mr. Martin—

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was referring to a Member nodding to someone else. I shall not allow that to enter into the proceedings when the Committee is dealing with a far more serious matter.

Dr. Godman: I shall behave myself, Mr. Martin.
We are dealing with important matters, especially for the fishing industry and for inward investment. I believe that the Scottish Parliament will need to be encouraged to develop its modus operandi, and the two Parliaments will have to develop the modus vivendi to diminish the chance of stress and conflict between them. That is where the concordats come in. They can be arranged harmoniously among the Departments in this multinational state of ours.

Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Godman: I am sorry; I do not have time. I beg the hon. Lady's forgiveness. I shall not be churlish enough to admit that she did not give way to me earlier. That is another point.
When the right hon. Member for Devizes was at the Scottish Office, there must have been times when agreements had to be reached among a number of Departments—the Scottish Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department of Transport. I believe that concordats can achieve a good relationship between the Parliaments.

Mr. McAllion: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I will not allow myself to be led astray by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I find it far too easy to lead myself astray, without other people helping me to do it.
I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan has a leaked copy of a concordat on inward investment. As he may know, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is about to conduct an inquiry into inward investment. If the Clerks to the Committee are not able to accept the leaked copy, I shall certainly accept it on their behalf—

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. McAllion: No, I do not have time.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is surprised that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should attempt to defend its position as the lead authority. I hope that the equivalent Department in the Scottish Parliament will try to defend its position as the lead authority. That is how politics works. I do not think that we should be bothered with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) always overstates his case—he probably thinks the same about me—but when he says that this matter is the epicentre of the Bill, I think that there is some truth in that. He said that civil servants cannot operate with two masters, and in a sense that is what we have to come to terms with in the devolution process. From here on in there cannot be one master. The Bill changes for ever the United Kingdom constitution as we knew it. We have to learn anew how to work together with the devolved Parliament and a Parliament at the UK level. The concordats will play a part in that. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's explanation.

Mr. McLeish: Let me assure the Committee that the proposed concordats between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Executive will not make provision in respect of matters that should properly be covered in the Bill. Nor will they be a sinister means to


avoid parliamentary scrutiny. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) says, "Come off it." His strike rate has been abysmally low throughout the eight days of the Bill's consideration in Committee, so his chances of increasing it are quite remote.
As the guidance note that we made available on 27 February made clear, the purpose of concordats would be to promote effective communication and good administrative practice in relations between UK Government Departments and the Scottish Executive. That will be in the interest of all parties. The agreements are not intended to be legally binding. Unless it would cause substantial harm on one of the clearly defined grounds set out in the recent White Paper on freedom of information, the agreements will be published.
Work on draft concordats will proceed before devolution, but they cannot be agreed until the Scottish Executive is established. The coverage of each agreement would be a matter for the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to agree. Likely common topics include consultation arrangements in relation to proposals for legislation and Executive action; exchange of policy papers, analysis and statistics; participation in working groups and official committees; liaison on EU and international matters; and, of course, consultation about UK or GB public bodies.
It is important to stress that no concordats have yet been published, for the simple reason that work is still at an early stage. Draft agreements will be published in due course when they are available, although it is too early to say when or how many there will be.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made the point, and I want to reinforce the response again, that agreements cannot be made until the Scottish Executive is up and running, and it should be clear that draft agreements cannot in any way be considered to be binding on it.
I hope that in the light of these comments, the new clause will be withdrawn.

Mr. Ancram: I listened to hear one single answer to one single question that I asked. I heard none. [Interruption.] The guidance note does not answer the questions, which is why I asked them. Having received no answers, I shall not withdraw the new clause, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 120, Noes 272.

Division No. 238]
[11.8 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Amess, David
Brady, Graham


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Butterfill, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cash, William


Body, Sir Richard
Chope, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Clappison, James


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)





Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Loughton, Tim


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Luff, Peter


(Rushcliffe)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Collins, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacKay, Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
May, Mrs Theresa


Day, Stephen
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan Smith, Iain
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Faber, David
Paice, James


Fabricant, Michael
Paterson, Owen


Fallon, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Soames, Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gray, James
Spring, Richard


Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hayes, John
Tredinnick, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tyrie, Andrew


Horam, John
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Walter, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Wardle, Charles


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Jenkin, Bernard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Johnson Smith,
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Willetts, David


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Woodward, Shaun


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Yeo, Tim


Leigh, Edward
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lidington, David
Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)





NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradshaw, Ben


Alexander, Douglas
Brake, Tom


Allan, Richard
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Browne, Desmond


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Buck, Ms Karen


Atkins, Charlotte
Burnett, John


Austin, John
Byers, Stephen


Baker, Norman
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beard, Nigel
Canavan, Dennis


Begg, Miss Anne
Cann, Jamie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Casale, Roger


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Chidgey, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Chisholm, Malcolm


Betts, Clive
Clapham, Michael


Blackman, Liz
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Dr Lynda






(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Ann
Howells, Dr Kim


Coaker, Vernon
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Connarty, Michael
Hutton, John


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jamieson, David


Cotter, Brian
Jenkins, Brian


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cranston, Ross
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Keeble, Ms Sally


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Davidson, Ian
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Khabra, Piara S


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kidney, David


Dawson, Hilton
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Dismore, Andrew
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Donohoe, Brian H
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Doran, Frank
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Dowd, Jim
Lepper, David


Drew, David
Leslie, Christopher


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Edwards, Huw
Linton, Martin


Efford, Clive
Livsey, Richard


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lock, David


Etherington, Bill
Love, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Fearn, Ronnie
McAvoy, Thomas


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McCabe, Steve


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonagh, Siobhain


Flint, Caroline
Macdonald, Calum


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McIsaac, Shona


Foulkes, George
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Fyfe, Maria
McLeish, Henry


Galbraith, Sam
McNamara, Kevin


Galloway, George
Mactaggart, Fiona


Gardiner, Barry
McWalter, Tony


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Mallaber, Judy


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Martlew, Eric


Godman, Dr Norman A
Meale, Alan


Goggins, Paul
Michael, Alun


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gorrie, Donald
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mitchell, Austin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moffatt, Laura


Grogan, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moore, Michael


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morley, Elliot


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hesford, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hill, Keith
Norris, Dan





O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Neill, Martin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stringer, Graham


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pearson, Ian
Stunell, Andrew


Pendry, Tom
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Perham, Ms Linda
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Pickthall, Colin
(Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pope, Greg
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Prosser, Gwyn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Todd, Mark


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Truswell, Paul


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Tyler, Paul


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Wallace, James


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire



Watts, David


Sawford, Phil
White, Brian


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Willis, Phil


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Snape, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Soley, Clive
Woolas, Phil


Southworth, Ms Helen
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John
Wray, James


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stinchcombe, Paul
Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Stoate, Dr Howard

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [30 March], put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clauses 111 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 114

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 560, in page 52, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 14 and insert
'Parts Ito V and sections 104 to 1l0'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 114, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 115 and 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. May I briefly but sincerely thank you and your fellow Chairmen for the admirable way in which you have conducted the Committee's proceedings? Through you, may I also thank the Clerks for their help during our proceedings?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am obliged, and I shall inform my colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman's kind words.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PENSIONS

That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out) Schemes Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PENSIONS

That the draft Social Security (Reduced Rates of Class 1 Contributions, and Rebates) (Money Purchase Contracted-out) Schemes Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 119.

Division No. 239]
[11.24 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Dr Lynda


Allan, Richard
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Austin, John
Clelland, David


Baker, Norman
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Connarty, Michael


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Begg, Miss Anne
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Corston, Ms Jean


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cotter, Brian


Benton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Bermingham, Gerald
Cranston, Ross


Betts, Clive
Crausby, David


Blackman, Liz
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brake, Tom
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
(Perth)


Browne, Desmond
Dalyell, Tam


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Buck, Ms Karen
Davidson, Ian


Burnett, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Caborn, Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Canavan, Dennis
Dismore, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Donohoe, Brian H


Casale, Roger
Doran, Frank


Caton, Martin
Dowd, Jim


Chidgey, David
Drew, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)





Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Linton, Martin


Edwards, Huw
Livsey, Richard


Efford, Clive
Llwyd, Elfyn


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Love, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCabe, Steve


Fearn, Ronnie
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonagh, Siobhain


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McFall, John


Flint, Caroline
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Don (Bath)
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McLeish, Henry


Foulkes, George
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
Mactaggart, Fiona


Galloway, George
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
Mallaber, Judy


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Martlew, Eric


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Meale, Alan


Godman, Dr Norman A
Michael, Alun


Goggins, Paul
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Miller, Andrew


Gorrie, Donald
Mitchell, Austin


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Moffatt, Laura


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grogan, John
Moore, Michael


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morley, Elliot


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hesford, Stephen
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hill, Keith
Norris, Dan


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Neill, Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pickthall, Colin


Hutton, John
Pike, Peter L


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pound, Stephen


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jenkins, Brian
Prosser, Gwyn


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Purchase, Ken


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Rapson, Syd


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rendel, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rogers, Allan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Roy, Frank


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Ruane, Chris


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Khabra, Piara S
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kidney, David
Salmond, Alex


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sawford, Phil


Kingham, Ms Tess
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lepper, David
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Leslie, Christopher
Snape, Peter


Levitt, Tom
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Southworth, Ms Helen






Spellar, John
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Squire, Ms Rachel
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Steinberg, Gerry
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Tyler, Paul


Stinchcombe, Paul
Vis, Dr Rudi


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wallace, James


Stott, Roger
Walley, Ms Joan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Ward, Ms Claire


Stringer, Graham
Watts, David


Stuart, Ms Gisela
White, Brian


Stunell, Andrew
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Swinney, John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Willis, Phil


(Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Taylor, David (NWLeics)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Woolas, Phil


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wray, James


Timms, Stephen
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Todd, Mark



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Kevin Hughes.


Truswell, Paul





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gill, Christopher


Amess, David
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Gray, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Green, Damian


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Grieve, Dominic


Body, Sir Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hayes, John


Brady, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Browning, Mrs Angela
Horam, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Burns, Simon
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Jack, Fit Hon Michael


Cash, William
Jenkin, Bernard


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith,


Clappison, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


(Rushcliffe)
Leigh, Edward


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lidington, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Loughton, Tim


Day, Stephen
Luff, Peter


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan Smith, Iain
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paterson, Owen


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric





Prior, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Randall, John
Tredinnick, David


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Trend, Michael


Robathan, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Walter, Robert


Ruffley, David
Wardle, Charles


St Aubyn, Nick
Wells, Bowen


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Simpson Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wilkinson, John


Soames, Nicholas
Willetts, David


Spicer, Sir Michael
Woodward, Shaun


Spring, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Steen, Anthony
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Oliver Heald and Mr. Nigel Waterson.


Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

That the draft International Development Association (Eleventh Replenishment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Xenotransplantation

Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Uncaged Campaigns, an organisation that is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and that opposes xenotransplantation—the use of animal organs for transplantation to humans.
The petition comprises more than 100,000 signatures, which I hasten to say are not with me tonight, but which have been deposited at Downing street. The petition states:
xenotransplantation …
1) carries the grave risk of virus transferal from nonhuman animals to humans, raising the possibility of the unleashing of an epidemic amongst the human population;
2) the likelihood of organ rejection amongst other complications, means that any recipients of nonhuman organs will suffer greatly;
3) ignores more sensible and effective approaches to promoting health such as preventative health measures and increasing the pool of human donors.
Furthermore we believe that treating nonhuman animals as "spare part" factories is immoral and inhumane.

I am pleased to present the petition accordingly.

To lie upon the Table.

Sewage Treatment (South Coast)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Dr. Desmond Turner: I raise a subject that is close to many people's hearts. I will try to avoid the obvious jokes; I will leave those to sedentary colleagues.
In the early part of the 19th century, we used to have open sewers running down the streets of our cities. We have moved on a little since then, but, to a regrettable extent, we still treat our coastal waters as open sewers, so we have not got that far. Eleven per cent. of our population still have their sewage discharged from outfalls into the sea after nothing more than preliminary treatment, which, in practical terms, means that water companies pump out what could be described as thick coliform soup, but with odd bits in it, so it is a bit like minestrone.
That is not a very sanitary practice. It is not very nice at all, and it constitutes a great public health risk. It is no pleasure to stand on the cliff at Portobello in my constituency and look out to sea. One can see the end of the outfall. If there is a gentle onshore breeze, the smell is not very nice.

Mr. Norman Baker: It is the same in Newhaven.

Dr. Turner: Yes, I am sure it is.
As we approach the millennium, it is appalling that we still have the most primitive, unsanitary practices, which expose us to health hazards that would have been recognised by the Victorians. The irony is that we have the means to stop it. That is the important thing. We have the means, but we need the dedicated will.
What are we to do? What is the next step? The European Union has made its contribution with the urban waste water treatment directive. If that were applied literally, it would mean that all our coastal sewage would be given at least secondary treatment. It would mean that my dearly beloved local water company, Southern Water, would have to meet the terms of that directive by 2000.
That water company has submitted proposals to build a new plant at Portobello, and has promised secondary treatment. The chairman and managing director came to see me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), and assured us that, at the very least, the company would put in secondary treatment. What we were not told was that, at the same time, it was trying to take advantage of a loophole in the directive, which is to seek derogation on the ground that sewage is being discharged into a high natural dispersion area. If that application is accepted and endorsed by the United Kingdom Government, only primary treatment will be needed.
The designation of a high natural dispersion area is exclusive in the European Union to Portugal and the United Kingdom. One cannot compare the seas around Portugal with those around the UK. The seas around Portugal are genuine high natural dispersion areas because they are very deep. Our seas are very shallow. To describe the North sea and the English channel as high natural

dispersion areas is foolish. When one examines the concentration of heavy metals in the North sea, it is clear that whatever goes into the North sea or the channel just stays there and gets washed around. The idea of dispersion is demonstrable nonsense.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent report on sewage treatment by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs made the clear statement that the category of a high natural dispersion area should be abandoned immediately? It made that recommendation for the reasons mentioned by my hon. Friend. It also referred to the evidence of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain which mentioned, among other things, the Solent, which is in my part of the world.
That association said that much of what was allegedly sent out to sea in a high natural dispersion area came back over the shellfish and made them difficult to market without rewashing. I strongly support my hon. Friend's suggestion that an area of high natural dispersion is not appropriate for Great Britain.

Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention, with which I concur totally. I had planned on dealing with that Select Committee report in a moment, and I shall.
The European Union has also produced a bathing water directive, which is slightly defective, as its mandatory guidelines are commonly breached in our bathing waters. Even the blue flag guideline figures—which, if met, allow a blue flag to be flown—are no guarantee that water is safe. The commonly monitored marker organisms are very misleading and do not provide an accurate picture of the public health hazard. The real, much more useful, marker is faecal streptococci, which is rarely measured. Attention has centred on the coliforms. Therefore, work has yet to be done on the bathing water directive itself.
There is a new bathing water directive—unfortunately, it is not yet in force—which will make some progress on the problem, but not enough.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) observed, the Environment, Transport and the Regional Affairs Select Committee has just produced a report on sewage treatment and disposal. I congratulate the Select Committee on its very thorough report, and totally concur with its conclusions and recommendations. Although I take seriously all the report's conclusions and recommendations on how to deal with problems—each of which is worthy of a separate debate—two conclusions and recommendations are more relevant than the others to this debate.
First, the report clearly recommends that, by 2002, tertiary treatment should be applied to sewage at all times and in all places. That target is entirely reasonable, physically obtainable and economically feasible.
The report's second immediately pertinent recommendation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test has already said, is that the category of high natural dispersion area should no longer be recognised in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will take very seriously those two clear recommendations.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that water companies are making vast profits


and paying out huge dividends, and that they could well afford to foot the bill to deal with the issue themselves? Does he also agree that—according to Water Watch, a consumer organization—in the Anglian region, £46 of everyone's water bill is being paid to shareholders? Does he also agree that research commissioned by Surfers Against Sewage shows that, in the first five years since privatisation, the Office of Water Services, the regulator, has allowed the water industry to out-perform the FTSE 100 by 35 per cent.?

Dr. Turner: I most certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The water industry's financial record is enviable, if one is a water company shareholder. Since privatization—in the years 1990–97—water companies have tucked away £2 billion in dividends alone. In that period, on average, they have been registering a 35 per cent. pre-tax profit, which is a massive profit margin. They are distributing 24 per cent. of their turnover in dividends. Therefore, 24 per cent. of everyone's water bill goes in dividends to shareholders.
I find that quite objectionable. It far outstrips the performance of most companies. The privatised utilities are best described as a licence to print money. They do not face massive commercial risk. They are faced with the need for investment, but they have the turnover to be able to afford it without soaking the customer.

Mr. David Lepper: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in towns such as Brighton, which he and I represent, where tourism is a vital part of the local economy, it is essential that residents and visitors should have every confidence that sea water is of the highest quality that modern technology can provide? In view of the figures that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) have mentioned, does he agree that our local water company, Southern Water, has a responsibility to help build that confidence for residents and tourists by investing now in the latest technology for water treatment, rather than waiting until forced to do so by directives from either the Government or the European Union?

Dr. Turner: I wholly concur with my hon. Friend. Beside the cost of the plant, the extra cost of installing tertiary treatment to provide the standard of water discharge we want is relatively trivial. The cost of the proposed Portobello plant is £60 million, and it would cost a further £1.5 million to install ultra-violet treatment to provide a tertiary stage.
That is trivial in relation to the overall sum involved. In terms of public appreciation, it would be a very good investment; and it would also be a very good investment for the economy of Brighton and Hove because it would mean we could have a coastline that not only qualified for a blue flag but was genuinely safe to swim from, surf on and use for various other water sports.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my hon. Friend accept that the biblical saying that one reaps what one sows does not apply in this context? The way the tides work on the south coast means that it is not only Brighton and Hove that suffer from the problems in Brighton and Hove, but resorts such as Eastbourne and Hastings further along the coast suffer from them, too. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost

to Southern Water is infinitesimal compared with the cost to our tourist industry, which is already under threat as a result of the problems that land on our beach?

Dr. Turner: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The way in which the tides work along our part of the channel coast means that Brighton's sewage plume just about reaches Seaford's and Newhaven's, which in turn moves along to Eastbourne. There is a belt of polluted water sloshing along the channel and, given a good onshore breeze, it comes ashore.

Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Turner: I have very little time.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned my constituency.

Dr. Turner: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman is briefer than usual.

Mr. Baker: I shall be brief. I am trying to helpful. My constituents share the hon. Gentleman's concern that Southern Water should invest in tertiary treatment. It is simply not good enough for it to come up with a cheap solution which involves dumping sewage further out to sea. The hon. Gentleman will have my support and that of my constituents for his efforts.

Dr. Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman and wholly agree with him. I am beginning to run out of time, so I shall start to wind up.
It is quite clear that the water companies are putting greed and the desire for profit above their heavy responsibility to provide for good public health, and are prepared to permit the continuation of a public health hazard in order to maintain their profits. That is quite unacceptable in the face of the public health case for good water treatment. Briefly, even water of blue-flag standard is not guaranteed safe for swimming, because the examination of micro-organisms tells us nothing about viruses. There is clear epidemiological evidence that swimming in blue-flag quality waters is a health hazard, and leads to viral infections in particular.
I conclude with an urgent plea to the Government to consider the excellent Select Committee report seriously. I think that they can be trusted not to treat it with the contempt with which the previous Government treated the previous Select Committee report on sewage treatment and disposal, which was also highly critical of the standard of treatment and recommended at least secondary treatment. That was nine years ago, but nothing was done. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to give us firm commitments tonight, but I hope that we can at least be assured that serious consideration is being given to a vital public health issue.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on obtaining tonight's Adjournment debate. As he said, sewage treatment is an


emotive subject for many people. In the time left, I shall try to explain some of the issues that will inform the Government's views and opinions.
My hon. Friend mentioned the benefits of full sewage treatment, and his concern that only primary treatment is currently being proposed by Southern Water for a number of sewage discharges along the south coast, including the large discharge in his constituency at Brighton, Portobello.
I certainly agree that we must consider very carefully before allowing coastal discharges to receive primary treatment only. However, we also need to think carefully about environmental standards and priorities before we commit limited resources, paid for through water bills, to specific improvements. Perhaps it would be helpful for me to put the matter fully into context.
Among the main statutory obligations which Southern Water—along with all the other privatised water and sewerage companies—must meet, are those imposed by the European Union's urban waste water treatment directive. The directive requires all significant discharges of sewage to be treated according to their size and the nature of the receiving waters over a phased timetable from 1998 to 2005. The largest discharges, and those with the greatest potential to adversely affect particularly sensitive waters, are to be brought up to the directive's standards more quickly than smaller discharges.
The directive specifies secondary treatment as the norm, but requires at least primary treatment for discharges to areas with high natural dispersion characteristics, such as the areas identified off the south coast. They were identified by the previous Administration in 1994 and involved 58 potential areas, following advice from the then National Rivers Authority, which had applied the criteria set out in the directive.
Designation of such areas, though, does nothing in itself. It merely provides a platform for decisions about the level of treatment to be provided following comprehensive studies. In practice, decisions about individual discharges are most important. We do not expect to make decisions on areas of high natural dispersion until after all the comprehensive studies on discharges in each area have been assessed, so that any relevant information coming out of the studies can be included in our consideration.
We are, of course, concerned that primary treatment should be used only where scientifically justified. Under the terms of the directive, it must first be demonstrated that there would be no adverse environmental effect from providing less stringent treatment than secondary treatment.
That must be shown through a comprehensive study of the impact of the discharge on the receiving waters. The study may be commissioned by the relevant water company, but it must follow a predetermined format. More importantly, the results of the study must demonstrate a lack of adverse environmental effect to the satisfaction of the Environment Agency, not the water company.
The Environment Agency is taking a rigorous approach to the assessment of such studies. If the comprehensive study fails to prove no adverse environmental effect, then

the agency will require secondary treatment to be installed. That is evidenced by its decision to require secondary treatment at Hendon in Northumberland, because it would provide environmental benefit. The agency refused to certify the comprehensive study, and secondary treatment will have to be provided.
Even primary treatment represents a considerable improvement on raw sewage being discharged from large cities into our coastal waters, as has happened until recently. Primary treatment significantly reduces the polluting effects of sewage by removing at least 50 per cent. of suspended solids and reducing biological oxygen demand by 20 per cent. It can also remove up to 50 per cent. of bacteria and viruses, which may be harmful to human health.
Moreover, where a discharge is made through a long sea outfall—often several kilometres offshore and into very deep water—the natural action of seaborne micro-organisms is capable of performing effectively and very rapidly the same process of further breakdown of polluting matter that occurs in secondary treatment.
I understand that Southern Water is planning to provide advanced primary treatment, by adding chemical assistance to the more basic primary treatment at its coastal discharges at Brighton, Littlehampton and Bognor Regis. That is projected to give a reduction, before discharge, of as much as 90 per cent. of the bacterial load—close to what would be achieved by full secondary treatment.
We have noted the concerns of those who are still not convinced that anything less than full secondary treatment will afford the necessary environmental protection. Representatives of the Environment Agency were asked in the autumn of last year to make a presentation to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the criteria and procedures applied to make recommendations for the identification of HNDAs under the directive. The presentation also covered the basis of the comprehensive study procedure. A representative of Surfers Against Sewage and researchers from the Water Research Centre were also asked to attend, to widen the discussion and represent the concerns of those not directly involved in the process.
The aim of the meeting was to provide more comprehensive briefing on the scientific aspects of the process of HNDA identification and of the comprehensive studies process. At that time, not many of the comprehensive studies had been completed or fully considered by the agency. However, we counselled the agency to be rigorous in its approach to assessment. On that basis, we were sufficiently reassured to allow the process to continue, pending a further meeting when more work had been done.
During the interim, completed comprehensive studies for the Southern Water discharges have been provided to the agency. Copies have been sent to the relevant local authorities and made available to the public for comment. The Environment Agency's southern region also advertised the availability of the studies in the local press.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment met the agency again last month to consider the generality of the issues. In the light of that discussion, we are considering the Government's policy options. It is right that we should carefully examine all the evidence, which may go beyond that provided by the comprehensive


studies. There are a number of factors to be considered, relating to the national context as well as the south coast situation. We shall ensure that the decision-making process takes into account the views of local people, as water charge payers and concerned environmentalists.
Ministers have not had detailed discussions with Southern Water about the financing of its commitments, because that is primarily for the company to discuss with Ofwat. However, Southern Water is among the smaller companies. The extra cost of providing secondary treatment at all its coastal discharges would be substantial—more than £150 million on the company's estimates.
In addition, we have heard today calls for nothing less than tertiary treatment, including the installation of ultra-violet disinfection for all coastal discharges. If there are sound environmental reasons for providing UV disinfection—for example, to protect bathers—that may be desirable. However, there would be an additional price to pay. Southern Water estimates that the addition of UV disinfection would incur further capital costs of £50 million, and annual operating costs of £2.5 million.
The Director General of Water Services will be considering the size of the estimates as part of the periodic review of water company price limits, which is already well under way. As part of the review, all water companies are under pressure to deliver efficiency gains, but it would be unrealistic to suppose that costs would not be passed on to water bill payers.
There is a strong argument that higher standards of treatment should be provided, if that is what local people want, but they must understand that they, as water bill payers, will ultimately have to pay for them. Even a very significant downward adjustment of Southern Water's estimates by Ofwat would be likely to result in price increases for Southern Water's customers.
It is true that some companies have undertaken to go further than their statutory obligations in upgrading sewage treatment, and to finance it in part through efficiency gains. We welcome that where it happens, but it must be a commercial decision for each company, within the constraints imposed by Ofwat, as the financial regulator.
I should make it clear that we are not in the business of protecting water company profits. We are seeking to strike an appropriate balance between environmental needs and priorities, and the impact on water bills. That applies not just to the relatively narrow question of the level of treatment for coastal discharges but to the full range of environmental objectives.
I expect that many of our constituents will say that they are prepared to pay a little more for environmental improvements, but others already find paying their water bills difficult. We should bear it in mind, too, that unnecessary additional treatment has a range of negative environmental consequences, including the use of additional land and energy consumption, with the potential for additional air pollution.
Last month saw the publication of the Environment Sub-Committee's report of its inquiry into sewage treatment and disposal. The report, which has obviously been mentioned, brings together a range of issues, including some that are very pertinent to this debate.
The Sub-Committee recommended that, by 2002, all sewage should be treated to tertiary level at all times. As a corollary, it recommended abandoning the concept of high natural dispersion areas. Alongside that, it is argued that the Director General of Water Services should not be seeking real-terms cuts in sewerage charges at the next periodic review.
We welcome the Sub-Committee's interest in these matters. The Government will, of course, be responding formally to its recommendations in due course, once we have given the important issues raised serious consideration. It is a pity that the Sub-Committee's report did not make more effort to set the recommendations against likely cost implications.
The recommendation for universal tertiary treatment, for example, goes far beyond European requirements, and exceeds the level implied by scientific evidence or health needs. Neither we nor the water companies have costed a comprehensive programme at such a very high level, but it is likely to run into many billions of pounds.
I agree that there should be no prejudgment at this stage of the appropriate level of water bills during the next pricing period, although, equally, we must be realistic about what is achievable at affordable cost. That is part of the process on which we are about to embark, in the context of the periodic review.
The director general will be seeking guidance from the Deputy Prime Minister about the priorities to be given to possible quality objectives to be achieved through water company investment. In response to that request, which is scheduled for July, we will set the policy framework for investment by water companies over the coming period. The issue that we have been debating will be an important element of that strategy. I assure hon. Members that the Government will take very serious account of the views that have been expressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve midnight